y  of  Church  Unity 


MAR  17  1924 


«ICaL  tt**' 


BX  8  .86 

Smyth,  Newman,  1843-1925. 
A  story  of  church  unity 


_ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/storyofchurchuniOOsmyt 


PUBLISHED  ON  THE  FOUNDATION 
ESTABLISHED  IN  MEMORY  OF 
JAMES  WESLEY  COOPER 
OF  THE  CLASS  OF  1865,  YALE  COLLEGE 


A  Story  of  Church  Unity 


/  *  %  *,T\ 

'  \V' 


■cJli 


Including 


The  Lambeth  Conference  of  Anglican  Bishops 

and  the 

Congregational-Episcopal  Approaches 


By  Newman  Smyth,  D.D. 


e 


New  Haven  •  Yale  University  Press 

London  •  Humphrey  Milford  •  Oxford  University  Press 

Mdccccxxiii 


Copyright,  1923, 


s> 


* 


THE  JAMES  WESLEY  COOPER 
MEMORIAL  PUBLICATION  FUND 


The  present  volume  is  the  seventh  work  published  by  the 
Yale  University  Press  on  the  James  Wesley  Cooper  Memo¬ 
rial  Publication  Fund.  This  Foundation  was  established  March 
30,  1918,  by  a  gift  to  Yale  University  from  Mrs.  Ellen  H. 
Cooper  in  memory  of  her  husband,  Rev.  James  Wesley  Cooper, 
D.D.,  who  died  in  New  York  City,  March  16,1916.  Dr.  Cooper 
was  a  member  of  the  Class  of  1865,  Yale  College,  and  for 
twenty-five  years  pastor  of  the  South  Congregational  Church 
of  New  Britain,  Connecticut.  For  thirty  years  he  was  a  cor¬ 
porate  member  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions  and  from  1885  until  the  time  of  his  death 
was  a  Fellow  of  Yale  University,  serving  on  the  Corporation 
as  one  of  the  Successors  of  the  Original  Trustees. 


Contents 


Preface  ........  5 

I.  Initial  Steps  .......  7 

II.  Appeal  for  a  Joint  Commission  of  Chaplains  in  War 

Times  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .15 

III.  The  Next  Step  .  .  .  .  .  .  .26 

IV.  The  Action  of  the  Episcopal  Convention  on  the  Con¬ 

cordat  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *35 

V.  The  Lambeth  Appeal  .  .  .  .  .  .  41 

VI.  The  Psychological  Factor  .  .  .  .  .  52 

VII.  Three  Practical  Proposals  .....  62 

VIII.  The  Providential  Training  of  Congregationalism  To 

Become  a  Maker  of  Peace  .....  65 

IX.  Keeping  by  Giving  ......  69 

X.  A  Personal  Word  to  My  Brethren  of  the  Congrega¬ 
tional  Ministry  .  .  .  .  .  .  71 

Appendix : 

I.  A  Preliminary  Statement  of  a  Joint  Conference  at 

Lambeth  Palace  ......  74 

II.  The  Concordat,  Canon  II  .  .  .  .79 

III.  The  Historical  Succession  of  Conferences  on  Church 

Unity  ........  81 

IV.  Three  Recent  Books  .  .  .  .  .  .  82 

V.  Concerning  the  Inter-communion  of  Believers  .  .  84 

VI.  Some  Words  from  the  Past  for  Present  Uses  .  .  86 


Preface 


IN  the  year  1908  the  Conference  of  Anglican  Bishops, 
gathered  at  Lambeth  from  all  quarters  of  the  world,  made 
an  overture  for  conferences  among  different  Christian 
bodies  in  behalf  of  the  reunion  of  the  Churches.  They  made 
this  notable  declaration,  “We  seek  not  compromise  but  com¬ 
prehension,  not  uniformity  but  unity.”  In  the  year  1920  the 
Anglican  Conference  of  Bishops,  again  assembled  at  Lambeth, 
sent  forth  “An  appeal  to  all  Christian  people.”  The  one  idea 
which  they  lift  above  all  others  is — Fellowship.  This  call  is 
now  laid  before  all  churches.  Decisive  action  must  be  taken 
upon  it.  To  let  it  go  by  default  would  be  to  decide  against  it. 

During  this  period,  between  these  two  conventions  of  the 
Anglican  Bishops,  more  rapid  and  greater  approaches  towards 
Church  unity  have  been  made  than  during  the  four  centuries 
of  the  history  of  the  divided  churches  of  Protestantism.  The 
great  war  has  brought  a  divided  Christianity  to  its  day  of 
judgment.  The  promise  of  another  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of 
man  on  the  earth  opens  before  us. 

In  these  pages  the  limits  of  space  prevent  me  from  men¬ 
tioning  many  approaches  from  various  quarters  which  are 
converging  towards  the  same  end  of  world-wide  Church 
fellowship.  I  must  confine  myself  wholly  to  an  account  of  the 
movement  with  which  from  its  beginning  I  have  been  per- 
sonallv  conversant;  and  as  I  have  the  materials  for  a  connected 
narrative  of  this  particular  movement  throughout  this  period, 
I  desire  now  to  render  them  easily  accessible  to  clergymen  and 
the  press,  for  intelligent  discussions  of  these  pending  issues 
and  for  use  in  various  church  conferences  and  study  clubs,  and 
for  a  better  understanding  of  the  Lambeth  Appeal  to  them  by 
the  people  in  our  congregations.  For  no  great  cause  comes  to 


6 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


successful  issue  until  it  becomes  the  cause  of  the  people.  Martin 
Luther  nailed  his  theses  to  the  door  of  the  church  at  Witten¬ 
berg;  but  that  did  not  bring  about  the  Reformation.  He  held 
his  famous  disputation  with  Eck  at  Leipsic;  but  that  did  not 
bring  about  the  Reformation.  He  issued  his  appeal  to  the 
nobles  of  the  German  people;  neither  did  that  bring  about  the 
Reformation.  He  gave  the  Bible  to  the  German  people  in  their 
native  tongue;  and  then  nothing  could  prevent  the  Reformation. 


I 


Initial  Steps 

NOT  long  after  my  settlement  in  New  Haven,  in  1882, 
I  received  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Huntington  of  Grace 
Church,  New  York,  an  invitation  to  attend  a  meet¬ 
ing  of  a  small  club  of  clergymen  from  several  denominations 
to  discuss  the  subject  of  Church  unity.  I  attended  with  inter¬ 
est  several  of  their  meetings,  but  the  times  seemed  unfavorable 
for  the  inauguration  of  any  practical  proposals. 

The  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral  of  1886  had  awakened 
much  discussion,  but  for  the  most  part  it  was  confined  to  state¬ 
ments  of  the  positions  held  by  different  church  bodies,  and 
beyond  a  general  expression  of  inter-denominational  good  will, 
the  discussion  gradually  died  away  without  reaching  any  prac¬ 
tical  approaches. 

The  theological  state  of  mind  generally  at  that  time  was 
not  ready  for  the  entertainment  of  the  apostles  of  reconcilia¬ 
tion  in  the  schools  of  divinity,  or  in  the  councils  of  ecclesiastics. 
Acute  doctrinal  differences,  now  quite  forgotten,  then  threat¬ 
ened  even  worse  divisions  among  the  churches.  Among  the 
Congregationalists,  the  Andover  controversy  and  the  conflict 
for  a  reasonable  liberty  of  scholarship  and  thought,  especially 
for  young  men  who  wished  to  be  sent  to  foreign  missionary 
service,  had  not  then  been  fought  through;  and  in  other 
churches  likewise  a  full  measure  of  liberty  in  the  interpretation 
of  creeds  and  freedom  of  faith  had  still  to  be  gained.  The  new 
biblical  criticism,  brought  over  by  students  from  Germany, 
was  awakening  distrust  and  fears  among  the  older  theologians. 
The  heralds  of  new  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  were  not 
at  first  welcomed  in  the  churches.  The  richer  values  to  faith  of 
these  studies  had  still  to  be  appreciated.  Some  who  still  main- 


8 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


tained  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  had  not  gained 
the  simpler  faith  of  a  colored  candidate  for  the  ministry,  who, 
when  asked  before  an  examining  Council  for  his  views  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  holy  Scriptures  replied,  “I  think,  Sir,  the 
Scriptures  are  sufficiently  inspired  for  all  practical  purposes.” 

Negotiations,  which  had  been  for  some  time  carried  on 
between  representatives  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal 
Churches,  were  broken  off  until  they  might  be  reopened  by  the 
acceptance  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the  doctrine  of  mutual 
recognition  and  reciprocity.  At  this  time,  the  House  of  Bishops 
had  manifested  such  opposition  to  the  consecration  of  their 
greatest  preacher,  Phillips  Brooks,  as  to  show  that  the  process 
of  education  in  his  richer  and  simpler  habit  of  thought  must 
be  carried  farther  before  any  large  realization  of  the  idea  of 
the  whole  Church  of  God  could  be  looked  for  in  the  world  of 
ecclesiastical  confusions. 

These  conditions  were  not  rendered  more  favorable  by  the 
transference  and  spread  in  this  country  of  the  Oxford  move¬ 
ment  and  the  increasing  dominance  of  the  so-called  Catholic 
party  within  the  Episcopal  Church. 

Those  unfavorable  conditions  in  later  years  gradually  dis¬ 
appeared.  So  again  I  found  myself  several  years  afterwards 
in  the  study  of  Dr.  Huntington  and  we  began  our  conver¬ 
sation  where,  some  twenty  years  before,  we  had  broken  it  off. 
Further  association  with  that  eminent,  lifelong  advocate  of 
the  peace  of  the  churches  came  about  in  a  quite  unexpected 
way.  In  a  volume  entitled  “Passing  Protestantism  and  Coming 
Catholicism,”  which  I  had  published,  I  had  closed  a  paragraph 
with  these  words,  “The  Episcopal  Church  by  means  of  its 
tradition  and  its  position  has,  as  no  other,  I  am  venturing  to 
say,  the  opportunity  and  the  call  to  become  the  mediating 
church  among  all  the  churches.  How  it  shall  heed  this  call,  in 
what  definite  and  practical  ways  it  shall  meet  this  opportunity, 
seems  to  be  the  first  and  immediate  question  of  a  Protestant 
re-union.  Others  must  wait  for  its  action.”  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Morgan,  the  rector  at  that  time  of  Christ  Church — the  High 


INITIAL  STEPS 


9 


church  of  this  city — on  reading  these  words  felt,  as  he  after¬ 
wards  told  me,  that  they  required  some  answer  from  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Church.  Accordingly,  he  wrote  to  Bishop  Brewster  of 
Connecticut  offering  him  the  use  of  his  Parish  House  if  he 
should  see  fit  to  invite  me  to  address  the  clergy  of  his  diocese 
on  the  subject  of  Church  unity. 

Bishop  Brewster  wrote  at  once  inviting  me  to  address  the 
clergy  at  their  coming  diocesan  convention  on  the  subject, 
“What  concessions  on  either  side  might  reasonably  be  made  in 
behalf  of  Church  Unity.” 

I  had  known  Dr.  Morgan  for  many  years  and  our  per¬ 
sonal  relations  had  always  been  friendly,  but  officially  and  in 
the  public  estimation  we  stood  at  the  opposite  poles  of  the 
ecclesiastical  world,  he  as  the  devoted  pastor  of  the  High 
Church  Episcopalians,  and  I  as  the  pastor  of  the  First  Church 
of  Christ,  established  by  the  Puritan  founders  of  New  Haven, 
and  in  the  line  of  the  Puritan  succession.  I  accepted  the  cor¬ 
dial  invitation  of  the  Bishop  and  received  from  the  Episcopal 
Clergy  of  Connecticut  a  cordial  welcome  and  thoughtful  hear¬ 
ing.  Dr.  Morgan  seemed  to  me  to  be  as  one  inspired  by  a 
new  spirit  and  beholding  as  a  vision  coming  down  to  earth  the 
one  Church  of  God.  Shortly  afterwards  in  a  letter  to  me  he 
wrote  these  striking  words,  “We  must  make  a  bonfire  of  our 
prejudices  and  fan  it  with  the  flames  of  our  sacrifices.”  After¬ 
wards  he  said  to  me,  “When  I  consider  the  problems  that  are 
coming  in  on  these  shores,  we  must  get  together  and  it  is  love 
in  the  hearts  of  us  all  that  must  bring  us  together.”  Not  long 
after  that,  when  wTe  two  had  thus  been  brought  together  where 
the  ecclesiastical  difference  between  us  seemed  to  become  a 
vanishing  line,  the  providence  of  God  took  him  from  the  visible 
to  the  invisible  church  above.  Suddenly  struck  down  by  an 
automobile,  he  finished  his  course  with  this  sacrificial  love  in 
his  heart. 

In  1908  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  Anglican  Bishops  issued 
a  declaration  recommending  that  conferences  should  be  held 
with  other  communions  in  behalf  of  Church  unity. 


10 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


At  a  meeting  of  the  State  Conference  of  Congregational 
Ministers  of  Connecticut,  not  long  afterwards,  the  proposals 
of  that  Lambeth  Conference  were  laid  before  them,  and  a  com¬ 
mittee  appointed  to  hold  such  conferences  with  Episcopalians. 
That  was  the  first  response,  so  far  as  I  know,  to  the  overture 
of  the  Anglican  Bishops.  Subsequently,  the  Congregational 
Committee  held  a  conference  with  several  Episcopal  clergymen, 
meeting  at  the  invitation  of  Bishop  Brewster  at  his  house  in 
Hartford.  From  a  report  of  that  conference  drawn  up  by  the 
Congregational  Committee  I  take  the  following  extracts:  “The 
single  aim  of  those  who  took  part  in  this  meeting  was  to  con¬ 
sider  in  the  most  essential  particulars  what  might  possibly  be 
done  to  form  a  practical  concordat  between  the  Congregational 
and  Episcopal  communions  by  which  one  of  our  inherited  walls 
of  separation  in  the  visible  Church  of  Christ  might  be  re¬ 
moved.”  The  subject  and  line  of  discussion  had  previously  been 
formulated  as  follows:  “What  changes  on  either  side  would 
be  necessary  in  order  to  realize  Christian  unity  between  those 
who  do  not,  and  those  who  do,  belong  to  the  Episcopal  Church : 
i.  With  regard  to  forms  of  worship?  2.  With  regard  to  Church 
membership?  3.  With  regard  to  administrative  unity?  4.  With 
regard  to  autonomy  of  local  Churches?  5.  With  regard  to 
ordination?” 

As  a  result  of  this  interchange  of  views,  certain  methods  of 
approach  were  suggested  as  possible,  viz.: 

1.  Forms  of  Worship. — Might  not  agreement  be  reached  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  constitution  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  with  due 
regard  to  the  diversities  of  the  Churches  by  the  Episcopal  recogni¬ 
tion  in  other  congregations  of  such  freedom  in  worship  as  might  be 
congenial  and  habitual  among  them? 

2.  Church  Membership. — Might  not  an  orderly  unity  be  attained 
by  further  mutual  consideration  of  these  facts:  (1)  that  confirma¬ 
tion  is  not  included  among  matters  essential  to  Church  unity  in  the 
Lambeth  overture;  (2)  that  while  in  the  Episcopal  Church  confirma¬ 
tion  is  cherished  as  the  layman’s  ordination  to  his  share  in  the 
priesthood  of  the  whole  Church,  yet  (3)  confirmation  does  not  con- 


INITIAL  STEPS 


ii 


stitute  Church  membership;  and  (4)  the  rubric  requiring  confirma¬ 
tion  according  to  a  general  interpretation  of  it  among  Episcopalians 
relates  only  to  their  own  children  and  catechumens? 

3.  Administrative  Unity. — Might  not  the  office  and  functions  of 
the  Episcopate  be  adapted  to  other  Christian  churches  as  an  organ 
of  their  fellowship  and  a  means  of  executive  unity  in  their  common 
Christian  interests? 

4.  Autonomy  or  Self-Government  of  Individual  Churches. — Might 
not  a  working  agreement  be  practical  by  the  recognition  on  the  one 
hand  of  the  self-governing  power  of  individual  churches  as  local  units 
in  their  immediate  interests  and  proper  jurisdiction,  while  on  the 
other  hand  general  advisory  functions  and  some  degree  of  Episcopal 
direction  should  be  secured  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  common 
work  and  welfare  of  the  Churches? 

5.  Ordination. — The  question  concerning  valid  ordination  of  the 
ministry  was  resolved  into  the  three  following  inquiries:  1.  What 
further  would  be  deemed  necessary  to  render  the  existing  ministry 
of  other  churches  regular  according  to  the  Episcopal  order,  and  pos¬ 
sessed  of  full  authorization  to  administer  the  sacraments  in  Episcopal 
churches?  2.  Might  not  such  desired  additional  authorization  be 
conferred  by  the  Bishops  and  received  by  the  ministers  of  other 
churches  with  mutual  regard  and  without  essential  sacrifices?  3.  To 
secure  such  regularity  and  unity  in  the  Christian  ministry  might 
not  the  alternative  form  of  giving  authority  in  the  Ordinal  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  be  rendered  acceptable  to  all  without  essential 
changes  by  the  use  of  a  few  prefatory  and  adaptive  words?  4.  If  this 
could  be  done  and  additional  or  enlarged  authority  could  thus  be  con¬ 
ferred  upon  the  ministry  of  different  Christian  bodies,  might  not  this 
be  a  convincing  manifestation  of  the  real  spiritual  unity  of  Christ’s 
Church,  and  a  long  step  be  taken  towards  the  attainment  of  outward, 
visible  unity? 

The  Conference  further  received  the  suggestion  that  if  such  con¬ 
cordat  could  be  reached,  it  might  lead  to  similar  understandings 
with  other  bodies  of  Christians,  so  that  in  time  denominational  and 
church  names,  which  are  now  felt  on  all  sides  to  be  inadequate  or 
divisive,  might  lapse  into  secondary,  if  not  temporary,  designations 
of  natural  diversities  in  the  one  Church  of  Christ  in  our  country; 


12 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


and  thus  the  way  lead  on  towards  that  “Church  of  the  future”  which, 
in  the  hope  of  all  Christians,  shall  be  as  wide  as  the  world. 

The  Conference  was  unanimous  also  in  the  opinion  that  the  obsta¬ 
cles  in  the  way  of  such  concordat  are  not  insuperable,  and  that  it  is 
now  timely  and  desirable  that  similar  meetings  be  arranged  at  differ¬ 
ent  centers  between  representatives  of  different  Christian  Churches 
for  the  mutual  comparison  of  views,  for  concessive  rather  than  con¬ 
troversial  discussion,  and  for  the  serious  consideration  of  what  may 
possibly  be  done  that  we  may  realize  our  common  and  supreme  desire 
to  render  more  visible  the  oneness  or  wholeness  of  Christ’s  Church. 

Among  those  present  at  that  conference  I  was  rejoiced  to 
see  Dr.  Huntington.  One  incident  of  that  meeting  I  well 
remember.  We  had  taken  up  for  discussion  the  form  for  the 
ordering  of  Priests  in  the  Prayerbook.  I  had  remarked  that  if 
two  letters  in  the  words  “Take  thou  authority  to  exercise  the 
office  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God”  were  altered  so  as  to 
read,  “in  this  Church,”  I  could  see  no  good  reason  why  a  min¬ 
ister  of  another  communion  might  not  receive  additional  ordi¬ 
nation,  a  good  understanding  as  to  the  intention  on  both  sides 
being  presupposed.  At  this  Dr.  Huntington  threw  up  his 
hand  and  exclaimed,  “I  believe  that  form  of  ordination  was 
providentially  put  into  the  Prayerbook  by  the  American  Bish¬ 
ops  for  just  such  a  time  as  this.” 

As  I  went  out  from  that  conference  at  midnight  and  looked 
up  at  the  stars,  it  seemed  as  though  the  ideal  had  come  very 
near;  but  the  next  morning  when  I  awoke  to  consider  all  our 
constituency  on  both  sides  and  our  inherited  divisions — these 
lesser  things  of  this  earth  earthy — the  heavenly  vision  of  that 
hour  seemed  to  fade  away  in  the  light  of  common  day.  But 
faith  for  the  realization  of  that  vision  was  made  more  deter¬ 
mined  by  that  first  conference. 

It  was  Dr.  Huntington  who  not  long  afterwards  wrote  to 
me  these  words  which  well  might  serve  as  his  epitaph,  “We 
may  well  be  content  if  we  may  have  any  part  at  the  beginning 
of  this  century  in  shaping  a  cause  which  is  bound  to  triumph 
before  the  century  closes.”  And  it  was  Dr.  Huntington  who, 


INITIAL  STEPS 


i3 


the  last  time  I  saw  him  on  a  wharf  as  I  was  leaving  him  at 
Northeast  Harbor,  Mt.  Desert,  said,  “Dr.  Smyth,  you  can 
do  no  better  service  than  to  devote  the  remainder  of  your  life 
to  the  cause  of  Church  Unity.”  My  thought  at  that  time  was 
most  occupied  with  studies  in  biology.  The  two  causes  were 
not  so  far  apart  as  it  may  have  seemed— -the  new  science  and 
the  new  churchmanship— for  we  must  learn  to  think  biologi¬ 
cally  if  we  would  think  God’s  thought  after  Him  theologically. 
Life  is  a  good  digester  of  logical  incompatibles. 

When  at  times  amid  the  ecclesiastical  confusions  and  vani¬ 
ties  of  the  hour  further  efforts  may  have  seemed  impracticable, 
those  parting  words  of  Dr.  Huntington  have  come  back  to 
me,  and  he  being  dead  yet  speaketh  to  his  own  Church  as  well 
as  to  mine. 

The  National  Congregational  Council  at  its  meeting  in  Bos¬ 
ton  in  1910  adopted  unanimously  and  by  a  ringing  vote  a  reso¬ 
lution  which  had  been  submitted  to  it  similar  to  the  action  pre¬ 
viously  taken  by  the  General  Conference  of  Connecticut  in 
response  to  the  preceding  Lambeth  Conference  of  the  Anglican 
Bishops  as  follows,  “We  on  our  part  would  seek,  as  much  as 
lieth  in  us,  for  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  whole  household  of 
faith,  and  forgetting  not  that  our  forefathers,  whose  orderly 
ministry  we  have  inherited,  were  not  willingly  separatists,  we 
would  loyally  contribute  the  precious  things,  of  which  as  Con- 
gregationalists  we  are  the  stewards,  to  the  Church  of  the 
future;  therefore,  this  Council  would  put  on  record  its  appre¬ 
ciation  of  the  spirit  and  express  its  concurrence  in  the  purpose 
of  this  expression  of  the  Lambeth  Conference,  and  voice  its 
earnest  hope  of  closer  fellowship  with  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
work  and  worship.”  It  was  also  voted  in  view  of  the  possibility 
of  fraternal  conferences  suggested  by  the  Lambeth  Conference 
that  a  special  committee  be  appointed  “to  consider  any  over¬ 
tures  that  may  come  to  our  body  from  the  Episcopal  Church 
as  a  result  of  such  conference.” 

It  was  a  happy  coincidence  that  this  Congregational  dec¬ 
laration  was  issued  simultaneously  with  the  action  of  the  Gen- 


14 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


eral  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  then  in  session  in 
Cincinnati,  calling  for  a  World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order 
as  a  first  step  towards  unity.  As  it  was  received  by  that  body 
just  before  their  adjournment  it  was  welcomed  by  them  as  a 
seemingly  providential  response  to  their  new  venture  of  faith. 
Since  that  time  the  commissions  of  these  two  bodies  have  been 
in  continuous  correspondence  with  each  other.  While  appre¬ 
ciating  the  necessity  of  patient  waiting  and  careful  avoidance 
of  the  temptations  to  indulge  in  controversial  criticisms,  I 
became  convinced,  however,  that  the  time  was  at  hand  when 
we  should  no  longer  be  content  with  throwing  off  our  respon¬ 
sibility  for  practical  proposals  of  Church  unity  upon  some  far- 
off  millennium,  satisfied  with  praying  for  it  as  we  went  to  sleep, 
but  that  the  providence  of  God  in  the  day  of  the  great  tribu¬ 
lations  of  the  world  at  war  was  calling  us  to  awake  and  saying, 
“The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand: 
Repent  ye,  believe  in  the  gospel.”  And  I  felt  that  if  we  waited, 
not  with  irresponsible  patience,  but  with  expectant  faith,  when 
the  moment  for  some  act  of  unity  should  be  fully  come,  we 
should  know  it.  And  it  came  to  me,  at  least,  as  in  a  moment  of 
self -revealing  certainty, — so  much  so  that  I  may  not  hesitate  to 
speak  of  it  as  a  step  determined  for  me  by  some  Power  greater 
than  mvself. 

J 


II 


An  Appeal  for  a  Joint  Commission  of 
Chaplains  in  War  Times 

I  WAS  on  my  way  to  New  York  to  attend  a  meeting  of  a 
sub-committee  of  the  World  Conference,  perplexed  and  in 
mental  darkness,  as  to  what  might  next  be  attempted, 
and  how  all  the  churches  might  give  their  best,  their  full 
measure  of  devotion  to  the  soldiers  in  camp  and  at  the  front. 
Suddenly  the  conviction  stood  out  clear  and  above  all  else, — we 
should  send  out  our  chaplains  to  the  front  in  the  name  and  the 
power  of  the  whole  Church  of  God  at  home.  Each  should  bear 
the  commission  and  feel  behind  him  the  support  of  them  all. 
This  was  the  thing  to  be  done;  this  was  the  call  of  the  Spirit 
to  the  churches  of  America,  and  for  the  Lord  Christ’s  sake  it 
should  be  done  at  once.  I  found  a  few  of  us  who  had  met  for 
conference  were  of  much  the  same  state  of  mind  when  I  made 
this  known  to  them.  We  decided  that  a  call  to  that  effect  should 
be  issued  at  once.  This  accordingly  was  immediately  done.  Hav¬ 
ing  received  some  hundred  endorsers  of  it  from  the  principal 
communions  we  sent  it  forth.  The  feeling  in  response  seemed  to 
be  general  that  the  war  called  for  some  decided  manifestations 
of  the  power  of  the  whole  Church  to  be  put  forth  in  some 
supreme  act  of  unity. 

The  following  sentences  from  this  appeal  may  be  enough  to 
show  its  purpose.  It  was  addressed  “To  all  our  Fellow-Be¬ 
lievers.”  “The  crisis  of  Christianity  requires  the  subordination 
of  all  things  divisive.  Without  prejudice  to  existing  personal 
relations  or  official  fidelities,  the  whole  Church  is  called  to-day 
to  make  one  sacrificial  offering  of  all  things  held  to  be  of  value 
in  one  great  venture  of  faith  for  God.  To-day  we  should  take 


i6 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


counsel  not  of  our  fears  but  of  our  hopes,  as  did  our  fathers 
before  us.  To-day  our  fears  may  be  our  disloyalties. 

“Bishops,  clergymen,  laymen — shall  we  loiter  in  the  way, 
disputing  about  many  things,  when  in  the  suffering  of  the 
world  our  Lord  is  crucified  afresh  for  the  sin  of  modern  civi¬ 
lization?  The  hour  commands  unity.  By  some  decisive  act  our 
faith  in  it  should  be  made  fact.  That  might  be  done  if,  for 
example,  as  a  war  measure  we  should  put  in  cantonments,  in 
regiments  and  on  battleships  chaplains  and  ministers,  from 
whatever  Church  they  may  come,  commissioned  not  by  their 
own  communion  only,  but  by  joint  ordination  or  consecration 
sent  forth  with  whatsoever  authority  and  grace  the  whole 
Church  of  God  may  confer,  bearing  no  mark  upon  them  but 
the  sign  of  the  Cross.  At  some  single  point  of  vital  contact — 
that  or  something  better  than  that — the  Church  might  act  as 
one. 

“Something  must  be  made  visible  fact  of  unity  to-day,  if  the 
Church — the  one  Church  of  the  many  churches,  the  only 
Church  which  the  Lord  Himself  had  faith  enough  in  God  to 
pray  for — is  to  become  tomorrow  the  power  of  God  to  save 
the  world.  This  cannot  be  too  long  postponed.  These  times 
require  quick  decisions. 

“Therefore  we,  the  undersigned,  representing  different  com¬ 
munions,  lay  before  you  this  appeal  for  action,  asking  for 
response  and  for  such  suggestions  as  may  seem  to  you  timely.” 

Not  long  afterwards  in  response  to  the  appeal  we  received 
the  following  letter  from  Bishop  Tuttle,  the  Presiding  Bishop 
of  the  House  of  Bishops:  “  .  .  .  I  heartily  approve  of  your 
‘appeal’  &  shall  take  pleasure  in  presenting  it  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  on  April  io. 

“Nor  do  I  see  anything  improper  or  unwise  in  your  making 
known  my  intention  to  the  Bishops  or  otherwise,  or  in  your 
publishing  in  the  press  whatever  you  think  best  about  such 
promise  on  my  part  &  such  proposed  presentation  on  your 
part.” 

Accompanying  the  appeal  we  sent  to  the  Bishops  individu- 


A  JOINT  COMMISSION  OF  CHAPLAINS  17 

ally  just  previous  to  their  approaching  meeting  a  printed  state¬ 
ment  of  our  reasons  for  making  it,  and  suggesting  more  spe¬ 
cifically  what  steps  might  possibly  be  taken  to  carry  out  its 
intention.  From  this  document  I  take  the  following  extracts 
sufficient  to  explain  its  purpose  and  to  indicate  that  at  least 
it  required  thoughtful  and  thorough  consideration. 

“Both  a  reason  for  rejoicing  and  cause  for  anxious  forebod¬ 
ing  are  put  directly  before  us  in  this  recent  remark  of  an 
Anglican  chaplain:  ‘The  longer  I  stay  at  the  front,  the  more 
I  care  for  Christianity  and  the  less  I  care  for  the  Church  of 
England.’  Shall  it  indeed  come  to  pass  that  after  the  war  our 
returning  soldiers  and  the  multitude  of  the  people  shall  believe 
more  in  Christianity  and  care  little  or  nothing  for  the  Church? 

“These  two  prospects,  either  of  triumph  through  united 
action  or  of  tragic  loss  through  divided  counsels  now  lie  before 
the  churches;  and  between  these  two  the  decision  must  be 
made.  At  the  forefront  therefore  of  our  communication  to  your 
Episcopate  we  would  put  the  paramount  obligation  of  the 
churches  to  lift  up  above  all,  and  at  the  cost  of  any  ecclesias¬ 
tical  sacrifices,  the  Church  of  God  as  the  visible  embodiment 
in  power  of  Christianity. 

“For  this  cause,  deeming  a  definite  answer  urgent,  we  wel¬ 
come  the  opportunity,  which  the  responsive  invitation  of  your 
Presiding  Bishop  affords  us,  of  laying  before  the  House  of 
Bishops  this  appeal  to  our  fellow-believers  in  all  the  churches 
for  some  act  of  unity. 

“We  must  ask  for  our  communication  your  especial  con¬ 
sideration  because  we  must  recognize  the  fact  which  we  all 
alike  deplore,  that  the  inherited  division  between  the  Episcopal 
ministry  and  the  ministries  of  other  communions  is  one  chief 
obstacle  to  the  reunion  of  the  churches  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation. 

“Some  single  act  in  itself  quite  simple  may  be  possible,  which 
may  prove  to  be  enough  for  an  immediate  unifying  point.  A 
slight  precipitant  will  crystallize  a  whole  solution.  Unless  some¬ 
thing  done  shall  be  thrown  into  the  discussion  of  Church  unity 


i8 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


it  may  remain  indefinitely  in  a  state  of  academic  indetermina¬ 
tion. ” 

We  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  at  the 
time  of  their  meeting  in  New  York,  a  telegram  stating  our 
readiness  to  meet  with  them,  or  with  any  committee  whom 
they  might  appoint,  to  consider  proposals  of  such  far-reaching 
importance. 

Their  meeting,  however,  was  a  hurried  one,  called  for  a 
special  matter  of  business,  and,  as  we  were  subsequently  in¬ 
formed,  our  Appeal  and  accompanying  communications  were 
referred  to  a  committee.  Their  report  was  a  refusal  to  consider 
our  proposals.  It  was  submitted  just  at  the  close  of  their  ses¬ 
sion,  when  some  of  the  Bishops  had  already  left.  One  of  them 
wrote  me  that  he  had  time,  just  as  the  vote  on  the  adoption  of 
the  report  was  taken,  to  shout  “No!”  as  he  entered  the  room 
from  another  committee  meeting.  The  report,  thus  hastily 
adopted,  was  made  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  Bishop 
Hall  of  Vermont.  The  copy  of  it  afterwards  sent  to  me  was 
dated  the  day  before  the  session  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 
No  consideration  was  given  to  the  reasons  for  our  Appeal  and 
the  explanations  which  we  made  of  it,  or  of  our  expression  of 
willingness  to  receive  from  them  any  further  overtures  for 
Church  unity. 

In  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  Bishop  Hall’s  adverse  report 
I  may  quote  these  sentences  from  a  letter  which  he  had  pre¬ 
viously  written  to  me  expressing  his  opinion  of  our  advances 
as  follows: 

“Our  war  commission  is  providing  and  equipping  chaplains 
of  our  own,  supplementing  the  official  governmental  appointed 
chaplains,  in  ministering  to  our  own  men  in  service  at  home  or 
abroad.  This  shows  the  way  which  we  feel  bound  to  take.  It 
[our  Appeal]  is  one  of  those  attempted  short-cuts  which  can 
only  lead  to  disaster.  It  would  mean  Pan-Protestantism  with  a 
vengeance  and  would  end  all  hope  of  reunion.  I  could  go  on 
endlessly  with  objections.” 

A  letter  which  we  subsequently  received  from  the  Presiding 


A  JOINT  COMMISSION  OF  CHAPLAINS 


i9 


Bishop  relieved  us  from  the  temptation  to  indulge  in  harsh 
criticism  of  this  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  I  recalled 
with  satisfaction  that  a  few  years  before  it  had  been  permitted 
me  to  join  with  other  members  of  the  corporation  at  Yale  Uni¬ 
versity  in  conferring  on  Bishop  Tuttle  the  highest  honorary 
degree,  that  of  Doctor  of  Divinity. 

He  wrote  as  follows: 

My  dear  Dr.  Smyth: 

I  am  out  in  the  country  on  Church  duty,  and  here  I  get  your 
kind  letter  of  the  17th.  If  I  may,  may  I  put  in  a  plea  for  kindly 
consideration  on  your  part  from  the  fact  that  our  two  days  of 
special  session  were  covered  with  agenda  .  .  .  and  also  of  the 
necessity  for  us  to  fill  the  Missionary  Episcopate  of  the  Philippine 
Islands,  Bishop  Brent  having  accepted  election  to  the  Diocese  of 
Western  New  York. 

Therefore,  the  earnest  and  thoughtful  study  of  your  Memorial, 
such  as  it  thoroughly  deserved,  was  crowded  out  and  opportunity 
for  appointing  a  conference  with  you  was  precluded.  You  speak  of 
your  intention  to  forward  me  a  communication  at  a  later  time.  I 
shall  be  happy  to  receive  it  and  to  direct  its  course  along  any  line 
that  you  may  direct. 

Faithfully  your  brother, 

DAVID  S.  TUTTLE,  Presiding  Bishop. 

The  communication  from  us  to  which  he  refers  was  with 
regard  to  the  possibility  of  his  selecting  a  broadly  representa¬ 
tive,  special  committee  for  further  conference  with  our  own, 
but  we  found  that  there  wras  no  canonical  power  for  the  official 
selection  of  such  a  committee. 

Bishop  Anderson  in  one  of  his  letters  at  this  time  expressed 
frankly  and  clearly  the  difficulties  which  were  to  be  consid¬ 
ered,  while  at  the  same  time  he  “was  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
some  definite  strong  movement.”  “I  can  assure  you,”  he  wrote, 
“of  an  open  mind.”  He  made  some  inquiries  concerning  our 
Congregational  polity,  in  regard  to  which,  without  inquiry, 


20 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


Bishop  Hall  in  his  report  had  shown  lamentable  ignorance.  I 
asked  Professor  Walker  to  answer  Bishop  Anderson’s  friendly 
inquiries  which  went  straight  to  the  essential  matters  needing 
authoritatively  to  be  explained;  and  no  one  better  than  Pro¬ 
fessor  Walker  was  qualified  to  do  that,  not  only  with  the 
authority  of  his  historical  knowledge,  but  also  because  of  his 
own  recent  valuable  service  in  drawing  the  draft  of  the  Decla¬ 
ration  of  our  Faith  and  the  Constitution  of  our  National  Coun¬ 
cil  which  was  adopted  in  1913.  I  take  pleasure  in  printing  his 
letter  in  reply  in  full,  as  it  is  valuable  for  general  reference  and 
use  among  our  churches. 

New  Haven,  Conn.,  281  Edwards  Street, 

March  23,  1918. 

My  dear  Bishop  Anderson: 

Dr.  Smyth  has  shown  me  your  interesting  letter  of  March  12th, 
and  has  asked  me  if  I  would  attempt  to  interpret,  if  I  can,  what 
we  of  the  Congregational  fellowship  feel  as  to  the  possibility  of 
co-operate  action.  In  your  judgment  Congregationalism  is  a  system 
in  which  individualism  is  supreme.  Of  course  what  is  meant  by  indi¬ 
vidualism  is  a  matter  on  which  definitions  might  differ;  but  I  think 
we  Congregationalists  do  not  hold  ourselves  chargeable  with  it  in 
the  degree  which  I  think  you  mean. 

Congregationalists  in  America,  and  increasingly  in  England,  have 
repudiated  the  name  “Independents.”  American  Congregationalists 
have  always  rejected  it  as  inappropriate.  They  do  indeed  hold 
strongly  to  the  autonomy  of  the  local  congregation.  It  can  choose 
its  own  officers, — but  only  those  of  New  Testament  designation  or 
not  inconsistent  with  New  Testament  principles.  It  can  admit  its 
own  members, — but  only  on  the  New  Testament  terms  of  the  Chris- 
tion  life.  It  can  exercise  discipline, — but  only  in  the  New  Testament 
wav  and  for  offenses  which  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Christian 
spirit  which  flows  from  it  recognizes.  It  can  express  its  faith  in 
words  of  its  own  choosing, — but  only  the  faith  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  and  consonant  with  New  Testament  teachings.  If  it  does 
not  do  these  things  then  it  is  disowned, — excommunicated, — by  its 
sister  congregations.  The  result  is  as  considerable  a  degree  of  uni- 


A  JOINT  COMMISSION  OF  CHAPLAINS  21 

formity  in  the  various  local  congregations  of  the  Congregational 
faith  and  practise  as  in  any  Christian  communion  of  which  I  am 
aware. 

But  local  autonomy,  under  these  conditions,  is  only  one  side  of 
Congregationalism.  American  Congregationalism  has  laid  stress,  since 
the  beginning  on  the  fellowship  of  the  local  congregations,  and  their 
mutual  responsibility  in  all  matters  of  common  concern.  Ordination 
has  always  been  on  the  advice,  after  examination,  of  a  council  of 
churches  represented  by  pastors  and  delegates,  since  entrance  on  the 
ministry  is  far  more  than  a  matter  of  local  concern.  Ordination,  save 
in  three  or  four  instances  in  earliest  New  England,  almost  imme¬ 
diately  rejected,  has  always  been  at  the  hands  of  those  already  them¬ 
selves  ordained.  (I  may  add  that,  though  Congregationalists  make 
little  of  it,  as  a  matter  of  historic  fact  the  Congregational  ministry 
is  in  as  direct  tactual  succession  (Presbyterial  of  course)  as  that  of 
any  communion,  its  first  ministers  from  which  its  ordinations  trace 
being  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England.)  The  establishment  of 
a  new  congregation  always  demands  the  meeting  and  approval  of  a 
council  of  churches. 

The  last  half  century  has  seen  a  very  rapid  growth  of  organs  for 
the  expression  of  this  fellowship  besides  those  that  I  have  indicated. 
Each  division  of  a  state,  usually  a  county,  now  sees  the  local  con¬ 
gregations  included  in  it  grouped  in  an  association  made  up  of  their 
pastors  and  delegates.  Such  an  association  is  responsible  for  the 
good  standing  of  its  ministers.  No  minister  not  so  guaranteed  can  be 
recognized  as  a  Congregational  minister.  The  affairs  of  the  district 
are  not  under  its  legislative  control,  but  of  its  supervisory  oversight, 
and  what  is  advised  to  the  local  congregations  by  the  association 
rarely  fails  of  becoming  their  act.  Similarly  the  churches  of  a  state 
are  represented  in  a  conference,  which  apportions  the  proper  share 
of  benevolences,  superintends  outreaching  “home-missionary”  work, 
and  employs  administrative  officers.  As  its  highest  representative 
body  Congregationalism  now  has  its  National  Council  meeting  every 
other  year.  The  authority  of  the  Council  has  been  rapidly  augment¬ 
ing.  It  is  not  a  legislative  body  in  the  sense  that  it  passes  statutes, — 
canons,— which  are  mandatory;  but  it  is  far  more  than  advisory.  It 
is  no  body  for  discussion  only,  like  an  English  Church  Congress. 
Its  session  is  filled  with  what  I  may  call  advisory  legislation;  and 
what  the  Council  decides  becomes  practically  as  regulative  of  the 


22 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


action  of  the  Congregational  body  as  a  whole,  as  if  it  were  judicial 
in  character.  Thus,  the  Council  has  twice  expressed  the  faith  of  the 
churches  in  creed-statements  which  have  had  very  wide  acceptance. 
It  has  taken  full  control  of  the  missionary  societies  through  which 
the  outreaching  work  of  the  Congregational  churches  is  accomplished. 
Though  under  no  legal  necessity  of  thus  putting  themselves  under 
the  control  of  the  Council,  they  one  and  all  did  so  promptly  and 
cheerfully  under  the  influence  of  denominational  sentiment.  The 
Commission  on  Unity  which  Dr.  Smyth  and  I  have  the  honor  of 
representing  in  part,  is  a  creation  of  the  National  Council,  and  I 
have  no  manner  of  question  that  the  recommendations  of  this  com¬ 
mission,  if  approved  by  the  Council,  would  receive  the  support  of 
the  whole  Congregational  body.  In  fact  I  know  of  no  religious  com¬ 
munion  at  the  present  time  that  has  a  more  representative  body  than 
the  Congregational  churches,  or  one  that  can  act  more  promptly  or 
efficiently.  So  when  you  ask  whether  Congregationalism  can  “deliver 
the  goods,”  I  can  say  that  I  know  no  religious  body  that  can  do  it 
more  promptly  or  effectively. 

The  Congregational  body  never,  even  in  its  earliest  days,  has 
claimed  to  be  the  whole  church  of  our  Lord.  It  has  always  recognized 
that  the  one  vine  had  many  branches ;  but  it  prays  and  longs,  in  this 
time  of  world-wide  stress,  for  greater  unity  not  merely  with  its  Lord, 
but  with  its  Christian  brethren. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Williston  Walker. 

It  was  gratifying  and  encouraging  at  this  juncture  in  our 
movement  to  receive  this  letter  assuring  us  of  the  sympathy 
and  interest  of  the  women  in  this  venture  of  faith. 

June  25,  1918. 

To  the  Reverend  Dr.  Newman  Smyth, 

New  Haven,  Conn. 

Dear  Sir: — 

A  small  group  of  women,  communicants  of  the  Protestant  Episco¬ 
pal  Church,  who  are  pledged  to  prayer  for  the  reunion  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  beg  to  express  to  you  how  deeply  they  have  been  stirred  by 


23 


A  JOINT  COMMISSION  OF  CHAPLAINS 

the  appeal  for  an  act  of  unity  signed  by  yourself  and  others  of  dif¬ 
ferent  communions  in  January,  1918,  by  the  subsequent  communica¬ 
tion,  which  was  laid  before  our  House  of  Bishops  on  April  10th,  and 
by  your  statement  made  after  their  reply. 

We  are  gratefully  aware  of  the  devotion  and  self-forgetfulness  of 
the  writers  and  the  Christian  courtesy  of  their  approach,  and  are  led 
to  feel  in  their  action  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Without  venturing  to  express  an  opinion  at  this  time  upon  the 
specific  plan  proposed,  we  are  devoutly  thankful  that  an  effort  of 
this  character  should  be  made  by  leaders  of  such  weight. 

We  recognize  the  generous  spirit  shown  in  these  proposals  and  we 
hope  that  the  way  may  be  opened  for  an  equally  generous  response. 

We  are  confident  in  the  belief  that  the  Divine  Wisdom  can  open 
a  way  to  the  visible  unity  of  God’s  children,  and  that  He  will  lead 
us  into  it. 

(Signed)  Alice  Van  Vechten  Brown,  Wellesley  College,  Wel¬ 
lesley,  Mass.;  Adelaide  Teague  Case,  New  York  City;  Julia  C. 
Drury,  Bristol,  R.  I.;  Grace  Hutchins,  Boston,  Mass.;  Abby 
Kirk,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.;  Charlotte  E.  Lee,  Huntington,  L.  I.; 
Euphemia  McIntosh,  Waltham,  Mass.;  Emily  M.  Morgan,  Hotel 
Victoria,  Boston,  Mass.;  Vida  D.  Scudder,  Wellesley,  Mass.;  Ruth 
G.  Sessions,  Northampton,  Mass.;  Margaret  Hilles  Shearman, 
Wilmington,  Del.;  Mary  Kingsbury  Simkhovitch,  New  York 
City;  Lucy  Watson,  Utica,  N.  Y. 

While  adhering  to  our  purpose  of  avoiding  any  public  con¬ 
troversial  discussion,  pending  these  negotiations,  we  deemed 
it  due  to  our  own  Congregational  body  to  explain  a  misappre¬ 
hension  of  our  faith  and  polity  into  which  the  Bishop’s  answer 
had  been  misled  by  the  report  of  their  Committee  on  our 
Appeal,  and  we  could  not  accept  their  action  as  final.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  we  issued  another  statement  in  which  we  explained  fur¬ 
ther  our  position,  and  appealed  to  the  whole  Episcopal  com¬ 
munion.  Without  entering  into  the  details  of  this  answer,  the 
following  extracts  from  it  indicate  its  purport. 

“One  of  the  reasons  given  not  only  for  declining  our  pro¬ 
posals,  but  also  any  negotiations  with  us  looking  towards  im- 


24 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


mediate  steps  for  the  unification  of  our  Christian  forces,  runs 
as  follows:  (We  must  remind  the  memorialists  that  in  the  case 
of  many  of  the  religious  communions  represented  by  them, 
there  is  no  central  and  authoritative  body  with  which  we  can 
treat  as  to  questions  of  intercommunion.  By  the  terms  of  this 
organization  each  congregation  is  independent  as  to  its  doctrine, 
discipline  and  worship.’  While  this  statement  was  being 
adopted  by  the  Bishops,  we  would  respectfully  remind  them, 
there  were  lying  on  their  Secretary’s  table  the  following 
resolutions  of  the  National  Council  of  the  Congregational 
Churches,  and  also  of  their  Commission  on  Unity.  The  Na¬ 
tional  Council  at  its  last  meeting  in  October,  1917,  unani¬ 
mously  resolved  that  ‘we  do  hereby  authorize  and  enjoin  the 
Executive  Committee,  our  several  commissions  and  particularly 
the  Commission  on  Federation,  Comity  and  Unity,  so  far  as 
in  them  lies,  to  seek  the  peace  of  the  Churches,  and  to  do  what¬ 
soever  they  may  find  occasion  to  do  in  order  that  the  many 
Churches  of  our  own  country  may  become  one  Christian  power 
to  overcome  the  world.’  And  in  order  that  we  personally  might 
be  sufficiently  accredited  to  the  House  of  Bishops  there  was  also 
laid  before  them  a  vote  of  our  Commission  on  Unity  authoriz¬ 
ing  us  ‘to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  House  of  Bishops, 
or  any  body  representing  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  receive  in  behalf  of  said  Commission 
any  Communication  which  may  be  presented.’  Our  National 
Council  we  believe  to  be  a  ‘central  body’  representative  of  our 
Congregational  democracy,  which,  while  exercising  no  lordship 
over  our  churches,  possesses  such  moral  authority  that  our 
Episcopal  brethren,  if  so  disposed,  may  confidently  treat  with 
it  on  questions  of  common  concern  for  the  advancement  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

“We  are  far  from  insisting  upon  any  proposals  we  may  have 
suggested  as  the  only  or  the  best  possible  measures  in  this  hour 
of  emergency.  We  still  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  receive 
from  the  Bishops,  whether  collectively  or  individually,  any 
overtures  for  unifying  action  that  shall  express  the  fundamental 


A  JOINT  COMMISSION  OF  CHAPLAINS 


25 


unity  of  Christianity.  But  we  cannot  on  our  part  consent  to 
remain  in  what  the  Bishops  have  so  truly  described  as  a  posi¬ 
tion  of  ‘comparative  powerlessness.’  At  this  critical  hour,  when 
as  of  old  all  the  tribes  of  our  Israel  are  called  to  come  down 
against  the  mighty,  our  Churches  cannot  be  content  to  sit  like 
Reuben  among  their  sheepfolds  listening  to  the  pipings  of  their 
flocks.  We  must  decline  therefore  to  receive  the  reply  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  as  an  adequate  or  final  declaration  of  the 
mind  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Rather  with  increased  urgency 
since  the  failure  of  this  reply  from  the  House  of  Bishops  to  rise 
to  the  height  of  the  great  argument  of  God  with  His  Church  in 
this  hour  of  its  supreme  opportunity,  we  would  lay  again  our 
appeal  before  the  individual  Bishops  and  the  communions  in 
their  respective  dioceses,  the  clergymen  of  every  name  in  their 
pulpits,  the  great  body  of  Christian  laity,  and  the  journalists 
who  know  what  the  people  are  feeling  after,  as  they  are  becom¬ 
ing  more  profoundly  religious  in  their  sacrificial  suffering  in 
the  war. 

( Signed) 

Newman  Smyth, 

Williston  Walker/’ 

Here  we  rested  waiting  to  see  what  might  be  the  next  sign 
given  us  as  we  would  press  on  to  know  the  things  that  are 
before,  as  the  Apostle  to  the  common  people  outside  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  pressed  on,  appealing  even  from  Peter,  that  he  might 
apprehend  that  for  which  he  was  apprehended  in  Christ  Jesus, 
— not  indeed  as  though  we  had  already  attained  or  any  pro¬ 
posals  of  ours  were  made  perfect. 


Ill 


The  Next  Step 

THIS  time  the  sign  came  to  us  not  in  the  garb  of  any 
ecclesiastical  authority;  it  was  a  knock  at  our  door 
by  a  layman.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  Mr.  George  Zabriskie,  wrote  to  me  making  the  inquiry 
what  the  views  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  were  as  generally  held 
among  Congregationalists ;  were  they  such  as  are  regarded  as 
permissible  within  the  Episcopal  Church?  I  answered  that  I 
had  heard  the  most  important  words  of  the  Episcopal  Office 
of  the  Holy  Communion  repeated  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  National  Congrega¬ 
tional  Council.  After  some  further  correspondence  explaining 
our  views,  Mr.  Zabriskie  disclosed  to  me  his  intention  as  fol¬ 
lows:  “Whether  or  not  any  plan  comprehending  all  Christendom 
be  feasible  now,  there  is  certainly  encouragement  in  various 
quarters  for  such  particular  or  local  approaches  to  unity  as  cir¬ 
cumstances  may  permit.  It  is  a  small  matter  whether  you  and 
I  should  come  to  some  agreement  of  minds  on  this  subject, 
when  we  consider  how  large  and  exalted  are  the  forces  that  are 
to  be  brought  together.  Nevertheless,  I  cannot  forget  that  in 
a  particular  stage  of  the  World  Conference  proceedings  we 
found  our  minds  in  harmony,  and  as  a  result  the  Garden  City 
Conference  saved  the  situation  at  the  time.”  Mr.  Zabriskie 
accordingly  proposed  that  he  should  gather  together  a  few 
favorably  disposed  persons  with  some  whom  Professor  Walker 
and  myself  might  desire  to  have  meet  with  them.  Shortly  after¬ 
wards  we  received  from  him  an  invitation  to  meet  for  such  a 
conference  with  a  few  Episcopalians  in  New  York.  Professor 
Walker  and  I  went,  not  knowing  what  might  befall  us.  We 
came  back  feeling  that  it  was  the  Lord’s  doing,  and  if  we  had 


THE  NEXT  STEP 


27 


the  spirit  of  patient  continuance  we  should  be  led  on  and  on 
beyond  any  foresight  or  wisdom  of  our  own.  We  met  in  one  of 
the  rooms  of  the  General  Episcopal  Theological  Seminary  at 
the  invitation  of  its  Dean,  Professor  Fosbrook.  We  began  our 
conference,  not  in  the  library  among  the  books  of  the  theo¬ 
logians,  nor  with  the  constitution,  canons  or  polities  of  our 
churches  before  us,  but  in  a  quiet  room  around  the  table  with 
the  book  of  Common  Prayer  opened  at  the  Office  of  the  Holy 
Communion  in  our  hands.  Such  at  least  was  the  birthplace  and 
the  spirit  among  a  few  men  of  good  will,  from  which  what 
afterwards  was  known  as  the  Concordat  came  forth.  At  the 
beginning,  as  we  took  our  places  with  Bishop  Vincent  at  the 
head  of  the  table,  we  said  that  we  thought  conferences  might 
be  of  little  avail  unless  we  came  to  them  with  the  will  for  unity. 
Bishop  Vincent  at  once  responded,  “That  is  what  we  are  here 
for.”  Then  with  the  will  for  reunion  in  our  souls  and  the  last 
Lord’s  prayer  in  our  hearts,  we  went  over  together  the  whole 
service  of  Communion  in  the  Prayer  Book,  dwelling  on  every 
phase  and  interpretation  of  it  in  their  usage  of  it,  lingering  over 
those  sentences  which  all  would  feel  to  be  the  very  essence  and 
consecration  of  the  sacrament.  Not  till  then  did  we  look  up 
and  ask  of  one  another,  “What  shall  we  do  together?”  Before 
we  parted  we  agreed  that  Mr.  Zabriskie  should  draw  up  a  draft 
of  such  a  canon  as  might  enable  the  Episcopal  Church  to  give 
to  others  additional  orders  in  particular  instances. 

In  subsequent  meetings  our  efforts  were  directed  towards 
such  agreements  in  the  phraseology  and  definitions  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  canon  as  might  render  it  possible  for  our  Episcopal 
co-workers  to  secure  its  adoption  by  their  coming  Convention, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  might  be  possible  for  a  Congrega¬ 
tional  clergyman  to  accept  such  additional  commission  of 
orders  without  denial  of  his  existing  standing  as  an  ordained 
minister;  and  in  compliance  with  its  conditions  in  the  hope 
that  he  might  render  larger  service  to  the  community  wherever 
such  common  ministry  might  be  advantageous  for  both  com¬ 
munions.  In  this  spirit  and  effort,  with  careful  regard  for  each 


28 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


other’s  positions,  the  proposed  canon  was  finally  agreed  upon 
to  be  laid  before  the  coming  Episcopal  Convention. 

As  might  have  been  expected  its  publication  occasioned 
much  discussion  in  the  religious  papers,  and  many  communi¬ 
cations  from  both  sides  which  seemed  to  show  too  hasty  inter¬ 
pretation  of  its  requirements.  The  irreconcilables  on  both  sides 
threw  over  back  and  forth  at  each  other  much  the  same  objec¬ 
tions.  Indeed  it  seemed  to  me  that  if  the  names  were  printed 
in  parallel  columns  they  might  have  been  transposed  from  one 
side  to  the  other,  and  the  same  objections  thrown  back  and 
forth. 

As  the  time  drew  near  for  the  meeting  of  the  Episcopal  Con¬ 
vention,  and  the  opposition  to  the  proposed  canon  from  the 
extreme  church  party  seemed  to  be  strong,  we  deemed  it  ex¬ 
pedient  to  express  in  several  personal  letters  our  sense  of  the 
importance  of  some  positive  action.  Without  that  we  felt  that 
we  could  not  overcome  the  prevailing  feeling  in  many  quarters 
that  all  which  was  meant  by  these  conferences  with  us  was 
eventually  the  absorption  and  extinction  of  other  communions 
in  the  Episcopal  Church;  and  it  would  be  more  and  more 
difficult  to  obtain  any  support  of  the  World  Conference,  also, 
if  that  impression  should  not  be  counteracted.  We  knew  how 
strongly  such  an  intention  had  been  repudiated  by  the  Epis¬ 
copal  leaders  of  the  World  Conference  Commission,  but  fre¬ 
quent  utterances  from  other  quarters  continued  to  give  that 
impression.  Besides  that,  we  wished  ourselves  to  have  it  under¬ 
stood  that  we  were  not  dealing  merely  with  the  Episcopal 
Church  here,  subject  to  all  the  canonical  and  other  limitations 
of  the  American  Episcopate,  but  we  appealed  on  the  broader 
basis  of  the  historical  Episcopate  according  to  the  Chicago- 
Lambeth  Quadrilateral.  Furthermore,  I  had  not  myself  over¬ 
looked  the  article  in  the  Rules  of  Order  of  the  House  of  Bish¬ 
ops  which  reads  thus:  “The  body  known  as  the  Bishops  in 
Council,  as  an  assembly  of  Catholic  Bishops,  and  considering 
and  acting  upon  matters  of  duty  or  responsibility  resting  on 
them  as  a  portion  of  the  universal  Episcopate  may  be  con- 


THE  NEXT  STEP 


29 


vened  at  any  time,  suitable  notice  being  given  by  the  Presiding 
Bishop  or  the  Chairman  of  the  House  of  Bishops.”  Conse¬ 
quently  we  were  justified  on  their  own  conception  of  their 
Episcopate  in  our  position  that  we  had  to  do  not  merely  with 
the  limited  body  known  as  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  subject  to  its  constitution  and 
body  of  canons;  but  much  more  than  this,  we  were  seeking  re¬ 
union  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  England  from  which  our 
forefathers  were  driven  out,  and  indeed  with  the  whole  Anglican 
Episcopate.  Accordingly,  just  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  con¬ 
vention,  I  wrote  to  Bishop  Brent  to  this  effect,  saying  that  if 
they  refused  due  consideration  of  our  Appeal,  we  should  imme¬ 
diately  be  obliged  to  transfer  our  endeavors  directly  to  Lam¬ 
beth,  seeking  to  restore  our  fellowship  with  the  Church  across 
the  sea,  which  the  previous  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops  at 
home  with  scant  consideration  of  our  memorial  had  denied  us. 

What  happened  in  the  House  of  Bishops  when  the  proposed 
Concordat  seemed  in  point  of  being  lost  is  correctly  described 
in  the  following  newspaper  report:  “ Bishop  Charles  H.  Brent 
of  Western  New  York  saved  the  day  by  a  dramatic  speech.” 
He  said:  “There  is  before  us  a  concrete  proposal  looking  to 
Church  unity.  It  has  been  carefully  thought  out  in  all  its  details 
and  we  believe  is  capable  of  being  acted  upon  by  this  body 
without  transgressing  principles  of  Anglicanism.  I  am  afraid 
a  reference  to  this  matter  or  talk  about  the  coming  Conference 
of  Faith  and  Order,  while  we  have  people  appealing  to  us 
hungering  and  thirsting  for  union,  might  lead  them  to  think 
we  were  sidestepping  the  great  question  and  afraid  to  face  it 
fairly.  I  feel  that  might  be  justified.  I  am  loyal  to  the  Anglican 
Church,  but  I  am  disloyal  to  a  deadly  conservatism.”  Then 
Bishop  Brent  read  a  letter  from  a  minister  outside  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  who  is  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  movement,  look¬ 
ing  towards  the  Concordat,  as  follows:  “Of  course  if  the 
Bishops  should  hold  that  they  have  demitted  their  power  to 
act  as  Bishops  of  the  catholic  or  universal  Church,  and  to 
negotiate  with  us  on  the  basis  of  the  historic  Episcopate,  and 


30 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


that  they  must  wait  for  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  why  then  the  only  possible  recourse  left 
open  to  us  would  be  to  carry  our  appeal  for  unity  to  the  coming 
Lambeth  conference  and  the  Anglican  Bishops  who  are  not  so 
limited.  I  should  greatly  deplore  seeing  the  American  Episcopal 
Church  put  into  such  a  position  of  ecclesiastical  powerlessness 
to  meet  the  present  supreme  duty  of  all  Christian  commun¬ 
ions.”  (This  was  the  position  which  we  had  taken  in  Professor 
Walker’s  letter,  p.  20.) 

The  extreme  self-called  Catholics  were  well  represented  in 
the  convention,  and  the  issue  seemed  doubtful.  Our  co-workers 
in  this  movement,  when  the  vote  was  finally  taken,  were  much 
gratified  by  the  result.  Bishop  Vincent  summarized  the  action 
of  the  Convention  in  this  letter: 

“My  dear  Dr.  Smyth: 

“I  think  that  you  will  be  still  more  gratified  when  you  hear 
how  much  more  has  been  accomplished  even  up  to  this  date 
[Oct.  21,  1919].  There  was  a  distinct  twofold  gain:  (1)  The 
devout  recognition  of  what  we  have  done  so  far;  (2)  The 
dignifying  the  whole  movement  and  proposing  to  give  it  offi¬ 
cial  recognition;  (3)  The  appointment  of  a  joint  commission, 
i.e.f  of  both  houses,  Bishops  and  Deputies,  to  continue  the 
conference  in  order  to  give  wider  consideration  of  some  such 
proposals.  The  Convention  took  the  necessary  first  step  to  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  by  referring  to  the  succeeding 
Convention  the  changes  in  the  Constitution  necessary  for  the 
adoption  of  the  proposed  canon.” 

Bishop  Vincent  writes  of  this  proposed  amendment:  “It 
does  not  authorize  the  individual  Bishop  to  decide  cases  as 
the  Concordat  proposes;  but  it  does  do  something  far  larger 
and  better,  it  asserts  the  control  of  the  House  of  Bishops  as 
members  of  the  Universal  Episcopate  over  the  presentation  or 
communication  of  Episcopal  orders  which  it  (and  not  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Convention)  may  approve.  .  .  .  The  locked  door — the 
constitutional  difficulty  it  not  yet  wholly  opened;  but  the 


THE  NEXT  STEP 


3i 


Bishops  have  at  any  rate  put  the  key  into  the  lock.  I  thank  God 
and  take  courage  for  the  rest  to  come.” 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  which  I  received  from 
Bishop  Anderson,  dated  October  22,  1919,  states  concisely  and 
clearly  what  was  accomplished  by  this  favorable  action  in 
submitting  the  constitutional  amendment  for  final  adoption  by 
the  next  Convention:  “It  authorizes  the  House  of  Bishops  to 
act  ‘in  exceptional  cases’  not  provided  in  the  constitution.  In 
other  words,  I  feel  grateful  to  you  and  others  for  having 
brought  it  about  that  the  Bishops  have  freedom  to  act  as  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Universal  Episcopate  and  are  not  confined  solely 
to  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  exercise  of  their  ministry.  It 
is  not  left  to  the  individual  Bishop  to  do  as  he  pleases,  but  the 
House  of  Bishops,  by  the  proposed  amendment,  would  be  free 
to  authorize  the  ordination  of  men  for  the  exercise  of  their 
ministry  in  other  places.  This  would  cover,  if  the  Bishops 
should  so  decide,  such  cases  as  the  proposed  Concordat,  and 
it  would  also  cover  interchange  or  ordinations  between  different 
Episcopal  Churches. 

“As  I  was  the  author  of  the  Resolutions  adopted  by  the 
House,  and  also  of  the  Amendments  to  the  Constitution,  I  feel 
that  perhaps  I  have  rightly  interpreted  the  action  and  intention 
of  the  Bishops.” 

The  further  value  of  this  amendment  may  be  seen  as  it  may 
better  enable  the  American  Episcopate  to  act  jointly  with  the 
whole  body  of  the  Anglican  Church,  without  needless  delay,  in 
any  broader  proposals  for  organic  fellowship  which  they  even¬ 
tually  may  be  led  to  make.  Our  Congregational  Commission 
may  well  be  grateful  that,  not  forgetting  that  it  was  from  the 
Church  of  England  our  forefathers  came  forth,  so  all  along 
we  have  held  that  the  restoration  of  that  broken  fellowship 
must  be  not  with  the  limited  constitutional  and  canonical  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  of  the  United  States  only,  but  with  the  Anglican 
Communion  as  a  whole,  and  in  mutual  relations,  according  to 
the  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral,  with  “a  constitutional 
Episcopate  adapted  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations.” 


32 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


While  waiting  for  the  next  meeting  of  the  Episcopal  General 
Convention  we  seized  upon  what  seemed  to  be  a  favorable 
opportunity  to  define  further  our  own  position  in  this  Declara¬ 
tion. 


A  CALL  FOR  A  COVENANT  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 

PUT  FORTH  ON  NOVEMBER  30,  1919,  BY  THE  COMMISSION  ON 
UNITY  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONGREGATIONAL  COUNCIL 

At  this  time  the  leading  nations  of  the  world  are  entering  into  a 
covenant  of  ten  years  for  the  realignment  of  their  military  forces  for 
the  sake  of  keeping  the  peace  of  the  world ;  shall  not  the  churches  of 
Christ  do  likewise?  Shall  the  diplomats  of  the  world  be  wiser  for  this 
generation  than  are  the  leaders  of  the  churches?  At  this  historic  hour 
the  people  throughout  our  churches  are  waiting  for  some  clear  call 
to  make  common  cause  of  their  means  and  their  sacrifices  that  we 
may  live  in  a  Christian  world. 

Surely  this  is  no  time  for  tarrying  in  theological  consultations  or 
standing  idly  within  ecclesiastical  limitations.  Now  our  spiritual 
unity  needs  to  be  made  so  visible  that  the  man  on  the  street  may 
see  it. 

“The  way  to  resume  is  to  resume.” 

The  last  National  Council  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  in 
June,  1921,  expressed  the  belief  “that  the  evangelization  of  the 
world  rests  in  a  united  Church.”  The  Council  gave  its  Commission 
on  Unity  ample  authorization  to  confer  with  other  commissions  in 
effecting  this  unity.  A  Joint  Commssion  of  the  Episcopal  and  the 
Congregational  Churches  has  had  for  some  time  under  favorable 
consideration  a  Concordat  for  common  ministry  in  particular  cases; 
the  recent  Lambeth  Conference  of  Anglican  Bishops,  held  in  London 
in  1920,  going  still  further  in  this  direction  in  an  appeal  to  all 
Christian  people,  looked  forward  to  a  large  organic  fellowship  in  a 
ministry  of  the  whole  Church.  These  proposals  call  for  responsive 
action. 

As  Congregationalists,  we  can  speak  only  for  ourselves.  But  that 
nothing  may  be  lacking  on  our  part,  we  would  declare  our  imme¬ 
diate  readiness  to  confer  with  representatives  of  any  other  churches 
concerning  any  realignments  or  unification  of  our  respective  forces 


THE  NEXT  STEP 


33 


and  ministries  that  may  be  proposed.  In  particular,  among  the  de¬ 
sirable  objectives  for  combined  action  we  would  be  willing  to  con¬ 
sider  means  for  the  attainment  of  the  following  ends: 

1.  The  mutual  recognition  and  utilization  of  the  ministry  of  the 
different  churches  for  common  needs  and  service  in  all. 

2.  The  offering  thereby  of  larger  fields  and  greater  incentive  to 
enter  the  ministry  to  our  young  men,  as  well  as  limiting  the  number 
of  ministers  required  for  effective  service  at  home,  where  one  may  be 
better  than  two  or  more. 

3.  More  gradually,  but  possibly  within  the  period  of  this  ten 
years’  covenant  of  peace,  such  consolidations  or  combinations  of  the 
educational  institutions,  and  their  means,  of  the  different  churches 
might  be  brought  about  as  would  prove  advantageous  for  the  best 
education,  and  fellowship  in  their  studies,  of  the  ministers  of  the 
different  Churches. 

4.  And  for  any  philanthropic,  social,  mission  or  federated  service  of 
the  churches. 

The  governments  of  this  world  are  co-operating  for  the  common 
good.  Shall  the  Churches  of  Christ  do  less  for  His  Kingdom? 

In  the  second  and  third  points  of  this  declaration  attention 
is  called  to  some  possible  advantages  of  greater  Church  unity 
which  may  well  be  brought  to  public  attention.  They  deserve 
constructive  consideration  from  those  who  are  officially  inter¬ 
ested  throughout  the  churches,  laymen  as  well  as  professors, 
in  the  education  of  the  ministry.  Not  only  do  we  have  among 
so  many  denominations  an  unfortunate  multiplication  of  theo¬ 
logical  seminaries,  sometimes  within  the  same  denomination, 
the  lingering  benefactions  of  forgotten  controversies;  but  what 
is  even  worse  we  are  not  giving  thus  to  all  students  of  divinity 
the  best  possible  education  to  meet  the  demands  of  these  times 
for  thoroughly  trained  religious  and  social  interpreters  of 
Christianity.  I  have  taken  up  from  the  shelves  of  the  Yale 
Library  the  catalogues  of  numerous  schools  of  divinity,  and 
glanced  through  the  books  used  in  their  courses  of  instruction 
and  noticed  other  advantages  rendered  accessible  to  the  stu¬ 
dents;  and  I  have  been  painfully  impressed  with  the  unequal 
opportunities  given  to  the  students  for  a  well-balanced  prep- 


34 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


aration  for  the  ministry,  unjust  to  many  who  are  devoting 
themselves  to  the  ministry,  and  also  inadequate  to  give  them 
mutual  understanding  of  the  views  or  tendencies  of  thought  in 
other  seminaries  than  their  own.  In  short,  the  churches  in  their 
present  divided  and  uneconomic  condition  are  not  giving  to  all 
the  youth  preparing  for  the  ministry  the  best  possible  educa¬ 
tion. 


IV 


The  Action  of  the  Episcopal  Convention, 
1922,  on  the  Concordat 


HE  Convention  did  three  things.  First,  it  adopted  the 


proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  was 


required  in  order  that  the  proposed  canon  might  be 


constitutionally  adopted;  secondly,  it  adopted  the  canon; 
thirdly,  it  adopted  an  amendment  to  the  canon. 

The  first  act  was  one  of  much  significance  for  future  ad¬ 
vance,  irrespective  of  its  immediate  purpose  in  opening  a  way 
for  the  adoption  of  the  canon. 

The  third  act  was  a  limitation  of  the  service  which  the  canon 
was  designed  to  render;  and  it  involves  matters  for  further  con¬ 
sideration  and  conference  which  were  not  included  in  the  canon, 
and  not  taken  up  in  the  consultations  of  their  Commission  with 
the  Congregationalists. 

The  canon,  as  mutually  agreed  upon  by  both  the  Commis¬ 
sions,  among  other  careful  provisions  for  the  ministerial  stand¬ 
ing  and  faith  of  the  ministers  who  should  thus  be  brought  into 
a  dual  relation  and  responsibility,  contained  this  clause,  “The 
congregation,  if  any,  in  which  such  minister  officiates,  shall 
declare  through  its  proper  representative  its  desire  for  such 
ordination  on  behalf  of  its  minister.”  The  minister  would  natu¬ 
rally  desire  to  do  that;  and  the  consent  of  his  congregation 
would  be  mutually  desirable,  and  give  promise  of  good  will  in 
the  future.  But  the  congregation  so  sanctioning  this  new  rela¬ 
tionship  and  larger  service  of  its  own  pastor  thereby  would  do 
nothing  whatsoever  to  alter  its  own  ecclesiastical  relations,  or 
to  determine  what  hereafter  they  might  become.  Naturally, 


36 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


however,  such  relationship  of  the  Bishop  with  its  pastor  would 
have  rendered  the  Bishop  a  welcome  visitor  to  his  congregation. 
With  this  tentative  arrangement,  promising  for  further  and 
possibly  more  comprehensive  relationship,  a  disturbing  element 
was  thrown  into  the  agreement  by  the  adoption  of  this  clause, 
“and  shall  declare  its  purpose  to  receive  in  future  the  minis¬ 
trations  and  the  sacraments  of  one  who  shall  have  been  or¬ 
dained  to  the  priesthood  by  a  bishop.”  This  additional  clause 
had  been  submitted  to  us  by  the  previous  Episcopal  Conven¬ 
tion  as  a  recommendation,  not  as  a  resolution,  and  it  had  been 
objected  to  by  us  as  not  in  accordance  with  our  own  approved 
policy  of  conserving  the  faith,  not  limiting  the  liberty  of  our 
congregations.  It  was  accordingly  reported  adversely  by  their 
Commission  in  good  understanding  with  us.  We  might  have 
welcomed  it  as  opening  the  way  to  another  step  forwards,  if 
the  Convention  had  adopted  the  Concordat  as  their  Commis¬ 
sion  advised,  and  then  referred  for  further  consultations  and 
conference,  any  proposals  that  might  seem  to  them  desirable, 
or  about  which  there  may  have  existed  some  anxiety  in  the 
minds  of  any.  The  word,  “purpose,”  used  in  this  additional  con¬ 
dition  is  elastic  as  a  rubber  band;  it  may  mean  much  or  little 
according  to  the  intention  of  those  by  whom  it  is  used.  But 
when  thrown  thus  into  the  carefully  drawn  language  of  the 
canon,  it  is  too  much  like  a  monkey-wrench  thrown  into  the 
machinery. 

One  alleviating  incident,  however,  in  this  action  of  the  Con¬ 
vention  may  not  at  this  point  be  left  unnoticed.  The  Chair¬ 
man  of  their  Committee  on  Canons,  the  venerable  Bishop  Hall 
of  Vermont,  in  his  report  to  the  House  of  Bishops  when  our 
proposals  were  first  submitted,  had  used  these  words  as  an 
additional  reason  for  the  rejection  of  the  canon:  “The  desire 
for  such  ordination  of  its  existing  minister  might  very  well 
be  due  to  his  personal  popularity  and  not  express  any  convic¬ 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  congregation.”  That  is  quite  likely,  and 
it  is  also  likely  that  a  popular  pastor,  so  doubly  authenticated, 
might  have  rendered  the  relations  of  his  congregation  to  neigh- 


ACTION  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  CONVENTION 


37 


boring  Episcopal  congregations  more  hopefully  friendly.  But 
the  anxious  guardian  of  the  book  of  canons  and  conservator 
of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  his  own  communion,  goes  still 
further;  he  adds,  “A  congregation  over  which  a  bishop  had 
thus  exercised  some  measure  of  authority  for  a  while  might 
quite  conceivably  withdraw  from  any  such  supervision.”  I 
should  not  myself  like  to  assume  that  a  bishop,  who  in  such 
acquaintance  with  a  congregation  had  gained  their  respect  and 
esteem,  could  so  easily  lose  his  personal  touch  and  friendly 
influence  among  them.  But  a  “congregation  over  which  a 
bishop  had  exercised  some  measure  of  authority  for  a  while” — 
by  what  auto-suggestion  had  Bishop  Hall  become  conscious  of 
such  measure  of  authority  over  a  congregation,  I  do  not  know. 
Certainly  I  had  never  heard  of  it  or  dreamed  of  it.  If  it  had 
been  dormant  in  the  inherited  sub-consciousness  of  those  with 
whom  we  had  so  many  pleasant  and  frank  conferences,  they 
at  least  were  wflse  enough  to  let  such  future  perplexities  take 
care  of  themselves.  Fortunately  these  ominous  forebodings  were 
lost  from  sight  in  the  action  of  the  Bishops,  and  no  intimation 
of  jurisdiction  over  a  Congregational  Church  occurs  in  any  pro¬ 
posals  now  under  hopeful  consideration  by  all  of  us.  Time  and 
again  such  intimations  of  gaining  jurisdiction  over,  or  of  ab¬ 
sorbing  other  communions  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  have  been 
repudiated  by  eminent  leaders  among  them,  and  disowned  in 
their  official  promotion  of  the  World  Conference  on  Faith  and 
Order.  I  have  brought  this  suppressed  objection  in  the  report 
of  the  Chairman  of  the  Episcopal  Committee  on  Canons  to  light, 
only  to  drop  it  as  something  requiring  no  further  consideration. 
In  all  our  conferences  and  discussions  concerning  these  never 
more  urgent  responsibilities  of  our  common  Christianity,  we 
may  commend  to  each  other  these  words  of  the  first  teaching- 
pastor  of  the  First  Church  of  Christ  in  New  Haven,  “Let  us 
take  counsels  of  our  hopes,  and  not  of  our  fears.” 


3« 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


Extracts  from  letters  concerning  the  action  of  the  Episcopal 
Convention  on  the  Concordat. 

From  the  Chancellor  of  New  York,  Mr.  George  Zabriskie. 

“It  marks  the  achievement  of  the  movement  which  you 
started  six  years  ago,  whereby  ministers  of  Protestant  churches 
might  receive  Episcopal  ordination  without  joining  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Episcopal  Church,  and  so  in  time  a  situation  could  arise 
in  which  a  larger  organic  unity  might  be  approached.  Such  a 
thing  has  never  happened  before,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  in 
the  history  of  Christendom.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  act  of 
any  communion  by  which  practical  effect  has  been  given  to 
the  desire  for  unity  by  opening  a  way  through  which  it  might 
be  attained.  The  barbed  wire  entanglement  of  orders  had  been 
opened  enough  to  admit  of  passage  through.  You  will  observe 
that  it  contains  no  negative  language,  nothing  which  could  pre¬ 
clude  a  congregation  from  receiving  other  ministrations.  It  is 
intended  to  provide  that  in  some  small  degree  the  congregation 
shall  stand  by  its  minister  when  ordained  under  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  canon.  It  is  the  mildest  way  in  which  the  Con¬ 
vention  could  express  the  hope  that  a  congregation  which  had 
once  had  the  ministrations  of  a  person  who  had  been  ordained 
under  the  canon  would  be  so  well  satisfied  that  they  would 
always  receive  them.  If  the  minister  has  no  congregation,  this 
clause  would  be  inoperative.” 

Mr.  Zabriskie’s  legal  mind  qualifies  him  to  interpret  the 
sense  in  which  the  somewhat  indefinite  clause  is  used  in  this 
connection. 

I  have  also  received  the  following  valuable  estimate  of  the 
action  of  the  Convention  from  Bishop  Vincent  of  Southern 
Ohio  who  was  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Canon. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  February  27,  1923. 

My  dear  Dr.  Smyth: 

With  reference  to  the  action  of  our  last  General  Convention  on 
the  so-called  “ Concordat”: 

Practically,  the  Canon  as  adopted  has  less  value  now,  of  course, 


ACTION  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  CONVENTION 


39 


than  it  might  have  had  at  one  time  as  a  war  measure.  But  it  may 
still  eventually  serve  its  general  purpose  of  promoting  “intercom¬ 
munion  in  particular  instances,”  not  only  of  missionaries  and  of 
Army  and  Navy  Chaplains,  but  also  of  other  ministers  who  believe 
that  the  acceptability  or  effectiveness  of  their  ministry  may  be  en¬ 
hanced  by  the  possession  of  episcopal  Orders  and  in  communicant 
relations  with  the  Episcopal  Church.  This  value  will  depend  largely, 
of  course,  on  what  further  action  our  Church  may  take  in  1925,  in 
providing  for  the  adaptation  of  our  Ordination  Service  to  such  “spe¬ 
cial  cases.”  The  amendment  of  Section  I  of  the  Canon,  providing 
for  a  pledge  by  the  applicant  minister’s  congregation  always  to 
receive  the  ministrations  of  one  episcopally  ordained,  may  be  open 
to  a  favorable  construction,  or  it  may  be  eventually  modified. 

But  the  greatest  value  and  largest  significance  of  the  Canon  are 
in  the  fact  that  it  was  actually  adopted  at  last  by  both  Houses  of 
our  General  Convention,  and  by  such  large  majorities.  For  this  fact 
was  not  only  evidence  in  general  of  the  growth  of  a  larger  and  more 
liberal  spirit  in  the  Episcopal  Church  toward  other  Churches;  it 
was  also  proof  of  our  continued  “will  to  Unity,”  temporarily  called 
in  question  by  the  hasty  action  of  our  House  of  Bishops  on  the 
Memorial  presented  to  it  in  1918.  More  than  that;  it  was  also  the 
expression  of  the  Convention’s  determination  to  “do  something  prac¬ 
tical”  in  the  interest  of  Unity,  even  though  the  Canon  was  recog¬ 
nized  as  being  not  at  all  a  comprehensive  scheme  for  that  but  only 
“a  step  toward  it.” 

Of  even  greater  value  and  larger  significance  was  the  Conven¬ 
tion’s  amendment  of  its  Constitution,  establishing  as  a  principle  our 
possible  ordination  hereafter  of  men  to  minister  in  other  Churches 
than  our  own.  It  was  this  which  made  possible  at  all  any  favorable 
action  on  the  Canon.  It  also  had  regard  to  the  increasing  likelihood 
of  our  being  asked  occasionally  to  ordain  priests  for  the  Eastern 
Orthodox  Churches  in  this  country.  But  the  best  of  this  constitu¬ 
tional  amendment  is  that  it  does  open  the  way  now  for  possible 
action  by  our  American  Episcopal  Church  on  the  lines  of  the  Lam¬ 
beth  Appeal,  in  sharing  our  episcopal  orders  with  those  who  desire 
them  in  the  interest  of  world-wide  Unity. 

For  that  was  the  really  great  spirit  in  which  that  Appeal  was 
made: — not  as  an  ultimatum,  but  as  at  least  one  practical  proposal; 


40 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


not  in  the  selfish  interest  of  any  one  Church  or  Communion,  but  in 
the  unselfish  interest  of  the  Church  Universal;  not  as  concerned 
merely  with  the  union  of  particular  Churches,  but  chiefly  with  the 
reunion  of  all  Christendom;  not  as  reflecting  on  the  efficacy  of  any 
ministry  but  as  desiring  to  secure  “a  ministry  acknowledged  by 
every  part  of  the  Church  .  .  .  opening  the  way  to  wider  service  in 
a  reunited  Church.”  And  there  was  no  step  proposed  to  others  in 
the  interest  of  such  a  universally  recognized  ministry,  which  we 
are  not  willing  to  take  ourselves. 

Cordially  yours, 


Boyd  Vincent. 


V 


The  Lambeth  Appeal 

THE  following  Appeal  to  all  Christian  People  has  been 
issued  by  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  Angli¬ 
can  Communion,  assembled  in  Conference  at  Lambeth 
Palace.  An  official  copy  was  sent  to  me. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  ALL  CHRISTIAN  PEOPLE 

FROM  THE  BISHOPS  ASSEMBLED  IN  THE  LAMBETH  CONFERENCE 

OF  1920 

We,  Archbishops,  Bishops  Metropolitan,  and  other  Bishops  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  full  communion  with  the  Church  of 
England,  in  Conference  assembled,  realizing  the  responsibility  which 
rests  upon  us  at  this  time,  and  sensible  of  the  sympathy  and  the 
prayers  of  many,  both  within  and  without  our  own  Communion, 
make  this  appeal  to  all  Christian  people. 

We  acknowledge  all  those  who  believe  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  as  shar¬ 
ing  with  us  membership  in  the  universal  Church  of  Christ  which  is 
His  Body.  We  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  called  us  in  a  very 
solemn  and  special  manner  to  associate  ourselves  in  penitence  and 
prayer  with  all  those  who  deplore  the  divisions  of  Christian  people, 
and  are  inspired  by  the  vision  and  hope  of  a  visible  unity  of  the 
whole  Church. 

I.  We  believe  that  God  wills  fellowship.  By  God’s  own  act  this 
fellowship  was  made  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  its  life  is  in 
His  Spirit.  We  believe  that  it  is  God’s  purpose  to  manifest  this  fel¬ 
lowship,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned,  in  an  outward,  visible, 
and  united  society,  holding  one  faith,  having  its  own  recognized 
officers,  using  God-given  means  of  grace,  and  inspiring  all  its  mem¬ 
bers  to  the  world-wide  service  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  is  what 
we  mean  by  the  Catholic  Church. 


42 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


II.  This  united  fellowship  is  not  visible  in  the  world  to-day.  On 
the  one  hand  there  are  other  ancient  episcopal  Communions  in  East 
and  West,  to  whom  ours  is  bound  by  many  ties  of  common  faith 
and  tradition.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  the  great  non-episcopal 
Communions,  standing  for  rich  elements  of  truth,  liberty  and  life 
which  might  otherwise  have  been  obscured  or  neglected.  With  them 
we  are  closely  linked  by  many  affinities,  racial,  historical  and  spir¬ 
itual.  We  cherish  the  earnest  hope  that  all  these  Communions,  and 
our  own,  may  be  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the  unity  of  the  Faith  and  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God.  But  in  fact  we  are  all  organized 
in  different  groups,  each  one  keeping  to  itself  gifts  that  rightly  belong 
to  the  whole  fellowship,  and  tending  to  live  its  own  life  apart  from 
the  rest. 

III.  The  causes  of  division  lie  deep  in  the  past,  and  are  by  no 
means  simple  or  wholly  blameworthy.  Yet  none  can  doubt  that  self- 
will,  ambition,  and  lack  of  charity  among  Christians  have  been  prin¬ 
cipal  factors  in  the  mingled  process,  and  that  these,  together  with 
blindness  to  the  sin  of  disunion,  are  still  mainly  responsible  for  the 
breaches  of  Christendom.  We  acknowledge  this  condition  of  broken 
fellowship  to  be  contrary  to  God’s  will,  and  we  desire  frankly  to 
confess  our  share  in  the  guilt  of  thus  crippling  the  Body  of  Christ 
and  hindering  the  activity  of  His  Spirit. 

IV.  The  times  call  us  to  a  new  outlook  and  new  measures.  The 
Faith  cannot  be  adequately  apprehended  and  the  battle  of  the 
Kingdom  cannot  be  worthily  fought  while  the  body  is  divided,  and 
is  thus  unable  to  grow  up  into  the  fulness  of  the  life  of  Christ.  The 
time  has  come,  we  believe,  for  all  the  separated  groups  of  Christians 
to  agree  in  forgetting  the  things  which  are  behind  and  reaching  out 
towards  the  goal  of  a  reunited  Catholic  Church.  The  removal  of  the 
barriers  which  have  arisen  between  them  will  only  be  brought  about 
by  a  new  comradeship  of  those  whose  faces  are  definitely  set  this 
way. 

The  vision  which  rises  before  us  is  that  of  a  Church,  genuinely 
Catholic,  loyal  to  all  Truth,  and  gathering  into  its  fellowship  all 
“who  profess  and  call  themselves  Christians,”  within  whose  visible 
unity  all  the  treasures  of  faith  and  order,  bequeathed  as  a  heritage 
by  the  past  to  the  present,  shall  be  possessed  in  common,  and  made 
serviceable  to  the  whole  Body  of  Christ.  Within  this  unity  Christian 


THE  LAMBETH  APPEAL 


43 


Communions  now  separated  from  one  another  would  retain  much 
that  has  long  been  distinctive  in  their  methods  of  worship  and  serv¬ 
ice.  It  is  through  a  rich  diversity  of  life  and  devotion  that  the  unity 
of  the  whole  fellowship  will  be  fulfilled. 

V.  This  means  an  adventure  of  good  will  and  still  more  of  faith, 
for  nothing  less  is  required  than  a  new  discovery  of  the  creative  re¬ 
sources  of  God.  To  this  adventure  we  are  convinced  that  God  is  now 
calling  all  the  members  of  His  Church. 

VI.  We  believe  that  the  visible  unity  of  the  Church  will  be  found 
to  involve  the  whole-hearted  acceptance  of: 

The  Holy  Scriptures,  as  the  record  of  God’s  revelation  of  Him¬ 
self  to  man,  and  as  being  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  faith; 
and  the  Creed  commonly  called  Nicene,  as  the  sufficient  statement 
of  the  Christian  faith,  and  either  it  or  the  Apostles’  Creed  as  the 
Baptismal  confession  of  belief ; 

The  divinely  instituted  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Com¬ 
munion,  as  expressing  for  all  the  corporate  life  of  the  whole  fellow¬ 
ship  in  and  with  Christ; 

A  ministry  acknowledged  by  every  part  of  the  Church  as  possess¬ 
ing  not  only  the  inward  call  of  the  Spirit,  but  also  the  commission 
of  Christ  and  the  authority  of  the  whole  body. 

VII.  May  we  not  reasonably  claim  that  the  Episcopate  is  the 
one  means  of  providing  such  a  ministry?  It  is  not  that  we  call  in 
question  for  a  moment  the  spiritual  reality  of  the  ministries  of  those 
Communions  which  do  not  possess  the  Episcopate.  On  the  contrary, 
we  thankfully  acknowledge  that  these  ministries  have  been  mani¬ 
festly  blessed  and  owned  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  effective  means  of 
grace.  But  we  submit  that  considerations  alike  of  history  and  of 
present  experience  justify  the  claim  which  we  make  on  behalf  of  the 
Episcopate.  Moreover,  we  would  urge  that  it  is  now  and  will  prove 
to  be  in  the  future  the  best  instrument  for  maintaining  the  unity 
and  continuity  of  the  Church.  But  we  greatly  desire  that  the  office 
of  a  Bishop  should  be  everywhere  exercised  in  a  representative  and 
constitutional  manner,  and  more  truly  express  all  that  ought  to  be 
involved  for  the  life  of  the  Christian  Family  in  the  title  of  Father- 
in-God.  Nay  more,  we  eagerly  looked  forward  to  the  day  when 
through  its  acceptance  in  a  united  Church  we  may  all  share  in  that 
grace  which  is  pledged  to  the  members  of  the  whole  body  in  the 


44 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


apostolic  rite  of  the  laying-on  of  hands,  and  in  the  joy  and  fellow¬ 
ship  of  a  Eucharist  in  which  as  one  Family  we  may  together,  without 
any  doubtfulness  of  mind,  offer  to  the  one  Lord  our  worship  and 
service. 

VIII.  We  believe  that  for  all,  the  truly  equitable  approach  to 
union  is  by  the  way  of  mutual  deference  to  one  another’s  con¬ 
sciences.  To  this  end,  we  who  send  forth  this  appeal  would  say  that 
if  the  authorities  of  other  Communions  should  so  desire,  we  are  per¬ 
suaded  that,  terms  of  union  having  been  otherwise  satisfactorily 
adjusted,  Bishops  and  clergy  of  our  Communion  would  willingly 
accept  from  these  authorities  a  form  of  commission  or  recognition 
which  would  commend  our  ministry  to  their  congregations,  as  having 
its  place  in  the  one  family  life.  It  is  not  in  our  power  to  know  how 
far  this  suggestion  may  be  acceptable  to  those  to  whom  we  offer  it. 
We  can  only  say  that  we  offer  it  in  all  sincerity  as  a  token  of  our 
longing  that  all  ministries  of  grace,  theirs  and  ours,  shall  be  available 
for  the  service  of  our  Lord  in  a  united  Church. 

It  is  our  hope  that  the  same  motive  would  lead  ministers  who  have 
not  received  it  to  accept  a  commission  through  episcopal  ordination, 
as  obtaining  for  them  a  ministry  throughout  the  whole  fellowship. 

In  so  acting  no  one  of  us  could  possibly  be  taken  to  repudiate  his 
past  ministry.  God  forbid  that  any  man  should  repudiate  a  past 
experience  rich  in  spiritual  blessings  for  himself  and  others.  Nor. 
would  any  of  us  be  dishonouring  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  Whose 
call  led  us  all  to  our  several  ministries,  and  Whose  power  enabled  us 
to  perform  them.  We  shall  be  publicly  and  formally  seeking  addi¬ 
tional  recognition  of  a  new  call  to  wider  service  in  a  reunited  Church, 
and  imploring  for  ourselves  God’s  grace  and  strength  to  fulfil  the 
same. 

IX.  The  spiritual  leadership  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  days  to 
come,  for  which  the  world  is  manifestly  waiting,  depends  upon  the 
readiness  with  which  each  group  is  prepared  to  make  sacrifices  for 
the  sake  of  a  common  fellowship,  a  common  ministry,  and  a  common 
service  to  the  world. 

We  place  this  ideal  first  and  foremost  before  ourselves  and  our 
own  people.  We  call  upon  them  to  make  the  effort  to  meet  the 
demands  of  a  new  age  with  a  new  outlook.  To  all  other  Christian 
people  whom  our  words  may  reach  we  make  the  same  appeal.  We 


THE  LAMBETH  APPEAL 


45 


do  not  ask  that  any  one  Communion  should  consent  to  be  absorbed 
in  another.  We  do  ask  that  all  should  unite  in  a  new  and  great  en¬ 
deavour  to  recover  and  to  manifest  to  the  world  the  unity  of  the 
Body  of  Christ  for  which  He  prayed. 

The  Lambeth  Conference  of  Bishops  represents  the  whole 
Anglican  Communion  throughout  the  world.  It  has  no  authority 
to  legislate,  but  its  deliberations  and  conclusions  represent  the 
mind  of  the  Church  and  are  received  as  indicative  of  its  policy 
with  regard  to  all  the  questions  that  are  submitted  to  it.  The 
American  Episcopate  was  well  represented  at  its  recent 
meeting. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  Bishops  from  every  continent  and 
from  the  isles  of  the  sea  were  assembled  in  Lambeth  Palace 
on  July  4,  1920.  “On  that  day  were  read  in  every  Anglican 
Church  these  words  from  the  Gospel  for  the  day,  ‘Launch  out 
into  the  deep.’  They  did  launch  out  into  the  deep,  it  has  been 
said,  of  unknown  possibilities,  but  for  that  ‘new  adventure  of 
faith’  there  had  been  much  previous  preparation  and  careful 
plans  laid.” 

The  question  of  reunion  of  the  churches  was  submitted  to 
a  large  committee  of  seventy-two  members  for  careful  consid¬ 
eration  and  report.  A  whole  week  was  spent  by  the  committee 
in  patient  and  serious  discussions,  which,  we  are  told,  ended 
in  what  seemed  to  be  an  impossible  impasse.  But,  as  one  of 
the  Bishops  afterwards  said,  “They  were  being  prepared  for 
the  revelation  of  the  Spirit.”  From  their  deliberations  came  the 
suggestion  of  an  “Appeal  to  all  Christian  People.”  On  Friday, 
August  4,  the  fourth  week  of  their  session,  came  the  memorable 
day  when  the  report  of  the  Committee  was  submitted  and  the 
vote  was  taken  upon  it.  From  the  accounts  given  of  it  by  those 
present,  the  following  sentences  may  suffice.  The  Archbishop 
of  York  moved  the  adoption  of  the  report.  One  after  another 
described  the  workings  of  the  Spirit  upon  his  mind.  “He  is 
working,”  said  one,  “in  us  and  through  us,  but  chiefly  beyond 
us.”  “I  have  been  unwilling,”  said  another,  “to  give  up  the 


46 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


crystallized  opinions  of  my  early  life.  I  have  struggled  against 
prejudice,  but  now  I  yield.”  “We  are  passing,”  said  another, 
“through  something  unprecedented.  There  is  a  real  sacrifice 
and  it  is  right.”  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  closing  said: 
“The  hour  is  a  solemn  one,  indeed,  in  after  years  to  look  back 
upon.  We  old  men  are  handing  on  our  trust  to  be  developed  by 
those  whose  splendid  adventures  have  taught  them  new  lessons. 
They  will  garner  what  these  tremendous  years  have  taught. 
We  set  our  hands  to  a  venture  of  faith,  believing  that  God  is 
with  us  and  calling  us.”  The  Appeal  was  carried  with  only  five 
dissenting  votes.  “When  the  deciding  vote  was  taken  I  wonder 
whether  there  was  a  bishop  present  with  eyes  dry.  As  the 
Primate  asked  us  to  stand  in  silence  and  thank  God,  we  all  felt 
that  we  had  not  only  been  guided  but  ruled  by  the  Holy  Spirit.” 
Of  the  five  dissenting  votes  that  were  given  one  of  them,  says 
the  English  writer  from  whom  I  am  taking  this  account,  was 
the  revered  Bishop  Hall  of  Vermont,  who  has  publicly  stated 
that  he  not  only  expressed  strong  disapproval  from  the  Catholic 
point  of  view,  but  ended  by  voting  against  the  whole  scheme.* 

The  Anglican  Bishops  assembled  at  Lambeth  had  no  au¬ 
thority  to  make  canons,  but  what  is  as  effective  as  any  canon, 
they  adopted  the  following  resolutions  in  addition  to  their 
Appeal : 

“The  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church  will  not  question  the 
action  of  any  Bishop  who  in  the  years  between  the  initiation 
and  the  completion  of  a  definite  scheme  of  union,  shall  coun¬ 
tenance  the  irregularity  by  admitting  to  communion  the  bap¬ 
tized  but  unconfirmed  communicants  of  the  non-Episcopal 
congregations  concerned  in  the  scheme. 

“A  Bishop  is  justified  in  giving  canonical  authorization  to 
ministers,  not  Episcopally  ordained,  who  in  his  judgment  are 
working  towards  an  ideal  of  union  such  as  is  described  in  our 
Appeal,  to  preach  in  churches  within  his  Diocese,  and  to  clergy- 

*  The  above  extracts  are  taken  from  an  article  by  Eugene  Stock,  D.C.I., 
entitled  “Lambeth — and  Afterwards,”  in  the  Constructive  Review,  1921,  pp. 
162  ff. 


THE  LAMBETH  APPEAL 


47 


men  of  the  Diocese  to  preach  in  the  churches  of  such  min¬ 
isters.” 

This  notable  resolution,  allowing  to  this  extent  an  inter¬ 
change  of  pulpits  between  Anglicans  and  Free  Churchmen,  goes 
beyond  the  canon  which  some  years  ago  Dr.  Huntington 
urged  upon  the  Episcopal  Convention,  allowing  ministers  from 
other  churches  to  preach  occasionally  in  Episcopal  pulpits,  but 
in  which  as  finally  adopted  the  wTords  “to  make  addresses” 
were  substituted  for  the  word  “preach.” 

There  is  no  one  among  the  English  Bishops  whose  opinions 
are  more  highly  to  be  esteemed  than  Bishop  Talbot  of  Win¬ 
chester.  I  regard  it  as  one  of  the  privileges  of  my  life  that  when 
I  was  in  England  as  one  of  a  delegation  in  behalf  of  the  World 
Conference  on  Faith  and  Order,  I  was  enabled  to  meet  him 
and  to  talk  freely  over  these  great  subjects,  and  since  then  to 
have  some  interesting  correspondence  with  him.  His  whole 
account  as  given  in  an  article  in  the  Contemporary  Review  is 
wTell  worth  reading.  I  must  take  only  these  abbreviated  sen¬ 
tences:  “The  topic  of  Church  Reunion,”  he  writes,  “was  one 
felt  with  an  intensity  which  was  new  and  in  itself  symptomatic, 
to  us  of  transcendent  interest.  How  was  it  that  the  result  was 
so  different  from  what  might  have  been  expected  and  that  The 
iron  gates  seemed  to  open  to  us  of  their  own  accord’?  There 
was  the  power  of  a  great  idea  or  truth.  We  had  been  stooping 
over  our  work  and  our  difficulties,  questioning  how  best  we 
might  ‘cobble  together’  some  of  the  innumerable  fragments 
of  Christendom.  We  felt  a  sudden  and  common  constraint  to 
lift  up  our  eyes  to  the  high  ideal — to  realize  that  it  was  the 
essence  of  the  ideal  to  take  shape  in  fact,  and  that  this  was 
the  purpose  of  Christ  himself.  The  Vision,  we  were  led  to 
say,  is  that  of  a  Church  genuinely  Catholic,  loyal  to  all  truth, 
and  gathering  into  its  fellowship  all  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians.  We  took  shame  on  that  account,  and 
acknowledged  ungrudgingly,  for  our  Communion,  our  full 
share  of  it.  An  idea,  dormant  today,  becomes  tomorrow  an 
explosive  force,  or  a  pervading  influence.  .  .  .  Why  did  this 


48 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


idea,  this  truth,  of  the  Great  Church  come  home  to  us  as  it 
did,  and  even  in  our  poor  expression  of  it  seem  to  awake  so 
much  response  in  others?  Partly,  I  think,  because  of  the  readi¬ 
ness  born  of  a  great  desire.  .  .  .  The  craving  was  for  some¬ 
thing  large  enough  to  kindle  the  imagination,  and  to  give  satis¬ 
faction  to  the  reason  and  the  affections.  ...  I  wish  to  say  a 
grateful  word  for  much  that  has  passed,  thank  God,  in  the  last 
decade.  It  may  be  well  for  a  senior  man  to  witness  to  the  mar¬ 
vellous  change  for  the  better  in  the  last  ten  years  in  interde¬ 
nominational  relations.”  Then  in  a  paragraph  concerning  some 
reconsideration  of  language  and  thought  by  High  Churchmen 
he  says:  “It  was  common  to  think  of  the  Church  as  confined 
to  those  Churches  which  retained  the  Apostolic  Ministry,  as 
well  as  the  Creeds  and  the  sacraments,  to  think  of  others  as  in 
schism.  All  this  is  gone,  and  gone  with  it  much  of  the  tempta¬ 
tion  to  arrogance  and  self-assertion  whether  Anglican  or 
Catholic.  The  work  of  the  spirit  in  other  communions  is  the 
evident  sign  that  they  are  within  the  great  fellowship.” 

I  have  received  the  following  letter  from  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  in  reply  to  a  letter  of  mine. 

My  dear  Dr.  Smyth: 

I  am  very  glad  to  receive  your  letter  and  to  know  of  the  cordial 
welcome  which  the  Lambeth  Appeal  has  received  from  your  own 
hands.  I  quite  understand  the  difficulty  with  regard  to  pressing  the 
Appeal  for  formal  discussion  in  America  before  the  General  Conven¬ 
tion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  expressed  its  mind  upon 
it.  Now  as  you  say  the  road  is  clear  and  with  the  General  Convention 
endorsing  the  Appeal  we  may  hope  that  other  Christian  Churches  in 
America  will  have  it  put  before  them  and  be  able  to  form  a  judgment 
and  give  it  expression. 

I  am  very  glad  to  hear  that  you  propose  to  issue  a  supplementary 
pamphlet  following  on  your  recent  “Approaches  towards  Unity,” 
and  I  am  quite  certain  that  the  inclusion  of  the  Lambeth  Appeal 
therein  will  have  a  quite  special  value  in  rousing  interest  of  a  prac¬ 
tical  kind  amongst  the  Christian  Churches  of  America. 

You  ask  me  whether  I  can  give  you  any  words  or  documents  which 


THE  LAMBETH  APPEAL 


49 


might  elucidate  the  Appeal  and  might  therefore  be  published  in  your 
pamphlet.  I  do  not  think  that  I  can  do  better  than  send  you  a  copy 
of  the  very  striking  Report  of  a  Joint  Conference  held  at  Lambeth 
published  under  the  title  “Church  Unity.”  It  is  the  result  of  very 
careful  and  deliberate  discussions  on  the  Appeal,  and  more  discus¬ 
sions  are  now  being  held  and  will,  I  hope,  issue  in  a  further  report. 
I  also  enclose  a  copy  of  the  Address  which  I  had  the  privilege  of 
delivering  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  last 
year.  Amongst  books  of  value  and  interest  on  the  Appeal,  Malcolm 
Spencer’s  “Impasse  or  Opportunity”  published  last  year  by  the 
Student  Christian  Movement  has  a  high  place,  and  there  are  many 
articles  which  deserve  careful  attention  in  the  “Constructive  Quar¬ 
terly”  both  from  the  episcopal  and  the  non-episcopal  point  of  view. 
I  ought  to  add  that  Mr.  Malcolm  Spencer  is  the  Secretary  of  the 
Free  Church  Fellowship  in  this  country  and  himself  a  Free  Church¬ 
man.  I  think  you  will  be  interested  also  in  “Lambeth  and  Reunion — 
An  interpretation  of  the  mind  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1920” 
by  the  Bishops  of  Peterborough,  Zanzibar  and  Hereford.  It  was  pub¬ 
lished  within  a  few  months  of  the  Conference  by  Bishops  who  took 
prominent  part  in  the  issuing  of  the  Appeal.  Of  course  it  has  no 
authority  except  such  as  those  individual  Bishops  give  it  and  I 
must  not  be  understood  as  necessarily  agreeing  with  all  their  views 
or  interpretations. 

I  noted  with  considerable  interest  the  publication  in  the  Church¬ 
man  last  year  of  “A  Call  for  a  Covenant  of  Church  Unity”  issued  by 
the  Congregational  Commission  on  Unity  and  bearing  your  signa¬ 
ture  together  with  that  of  Dr.  Boynton  and  Professor  Walker.  I 
suppose  that  was  in  the  nature  of  an  interim  utterance.  If,  however, 
your  Commission  has  issued  any  Report  or  further  document  it 
would  interest  me  to  see  it.  I  understand  from  your  letter  that  it 
will  be  for  the  Commission  on  Unity  to  report  to  the  National 
Council  next  October. 

I  was  also  interested  in  reading  the  account  of  the  General  Con¬ 
vention  of  the  Episcopal  Church  to  see  that  they  had  approved  of 
the  new  Canon  on  the  Concordat.  I  have  not,  naturally,  had  much 
opportunity  of  hearing  how  the  Canon  has  been  received,  though  it 
it  a  matter  which  again  interests  me  greatly. 

It  was  a  pleasure  to  hear  from  you  again  and  to  be  reminded  of 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


50 

talks  at  Lambeth  in  connection  with  the  World  Conference  on  Faith 
and  Order.  Perhaps  we  may  have  the  happiness  of  seeing  you  over 
in  England  again  one  day. 

Having  thus  received  from  the  Church  of  England  a  “mes¬ 
sage  from  the  heart/’  which  Leibnitz  found  to  be  the  first  thing 
needful,  we  may  now  turn  hopefully  to  his  method  of  proceed¬ 
ing  “as  accountants  and  surveyors  might”; — to  the  practical 
undertaking  of  adjusting  to  each  other  the  ecclesiastical  polities 
and  making  the  most  of  the  values  of  too  long  wastefully  sepa¬ 
rated  communion.  This  further  task  at  the  present  time  is 
being  carefully  worked  out  by  two  large  and  representative 
committees  in  England,  one  composed  of  the  two  Archbishops 
and  other  bishops  and  representatives  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  the  other  of  well-known  representatives  of  Non- 
Episcopal  Communions  appointed  by  the  Federal  Council  of 
the  Free  Churches.  They  have  recently  issued  a  preliminary 
report  which  is  of  such  value  that  it  is  here  printed  in  full. 
(See  Appendix.) 

This  report  has  great  value  not  only  because  of  the  eminent 
leaders  whose  signatures  are  attached  to  it,  but  also  as  indi¬ 
cating  a  right  method  for  reaching  the  solution  of  the  problems 
that  must  be  settled  in  the  practical  reunion  of  the  churches. 
Nothing  is  more  evident  to  the  historian  who  studies  the  causes 
of  the  continued  divisions  of  the  churches  than  the  failure  to 
put  the  first  values  first  and  other  things  in  their  relative  order 
of  importance.  If  all  should  sincerely  determine  to  do  this, 
to  begin  with  the  most  precious  things  of  our  common  Chris¬ 
tian  heritage  and  faith,  and  then  go  down  the  scale  of  things 
of  lesser  or  temporary  values,  not  indeed  compromising  but 
comprehending  lesser  differences  in  these  higher  unities,  giv¬ 
ing  up  what  needs  to  be  given  up  in  order  that  we  may  give 
ourselves  wholly  to  one  another  for  Christ’s  sake — this  would 
lead  us  on  straight  and  far  towards  that  fellowship  of  all 
believers  in  work  and  worship.  It  is  vain  to  meet  and  pray  for 
it,  and  then  to  stand  idly  by  until  the  Lord  Himself  shall 
come — sometime ! 


THE  LAMBETH  APPEAL 


5i 


Observe  particularly  in  this  report  that  the  order  in  which 
the  offices  and  functions  of  the  ministry  are  taken  up  is  clearly 
and  admirably  set  forth.  To  follow  this  order  in  our  con¬ 
ferences  and  discussions  might  tend  both  to  clarity  and  charity. 


VI 


The  Psychological  Factor  in  the  Move¬ 
ment  towards  the  Reunion  of 
the  Protestant  Churches 

NO  serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  Church  unity  are 
to  be  found  in  the  existing  varieties  of  religious  ex¬ 
perience,  or  in  the  differences  of  forms  of  worship  to 
be  adapted  to  the  needs  or  habits  of  individuals.  The  psycho¬ 
logical  factor,  however,  goes  down  deeper  into  human  nature 
than  such  differences.  It  has  been  a  disruptive  force  in  the 
history  of  the  church.  Pent  up  too  long  it  has  broken  forth 
through  the  existing  crust  of  conformity,  causing  abrupt 
chasms,  which  afterwards  have  hardened  into  permanent,  con¬ 
fronting  walls  of  separation.  These  inherited  schisms  and 
their  causes  must  be  fully  recognized ;  we  must  either  surmount 
them  or  find  the  way  around  them  to  some  broad  comprehen¬ 
sion,  if  the  Church  of  God  is  to  recover  its  lost  unity. 

One  primal  cause  of  these  confronting  divisions  should  be 
clearly  recognized  and  allowed  in  practical  proposals  for 
reunions;  that  is,  the  personal  psychological  factor.  Indeed 
indications  of  this  more  fundamental  cause  of  reformations  or 
schisms  may  be  discerned  in  the  minor  personal  characteris¬ 
tics  of  founders  and  leaders  of  existing  denominations  and  sects, 
or  even  at  this  time  of  conflicting  parties,  threatening  heresy 
trials  and  divisions  within  the  same  communion.  Notice,  for 
example,  Martin  Luther’s  personal  psychology,  as  disclosed  in 
his  letters  to  his  children,  his  practical  sermons  to  working 
people,  and  in  the  incident  related  of  him  by  a  casual  spectator 
that  he  carried  a  bunch  of  flowers  in  his  hand  in  his  disputa¬ 
tion  with  Eck  at  Leipsic. 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTOR  53 

How  different  was  the  mould  in  which  nature  had  cast  the 
psychology  of  John  Calvin.  I  do  not  know  how  he  played  with 
little  children.  He  dwelt  on  the  shore  of  the  beautiful  lake  of 
Geneva.  He  might  have  looked  out  from  his  study  window  and 
beheld  the  mountains  with  the  glory  of  the  dawn  upon  their 
summits.  He  might  have  dropped  his  laborious  writings,  and 
wandered  along  the  shores  of  the  lake  in  their  beauty  and 
blossoming,  as  Jonathan  Edwards  found  communion  with  God 
as  he  walked  among  the  trees  along  the  banks  of  the  Hudson. 
I  wonder  if  John  Calvin  ever  did.  I  have  not  chanced  in  his 
writings  (so  far  as  I  have  read  them)  upon  any  such  allusions 
to  nature.  Or,  to  recall  one  other  instance  among  many,  how 
different  was  the  personal  psychological  factor  in  Erasmus, 
with  his  Oxford  learning  and  his  native  wit,  which  fitted  him 
to  write  that  effective  prelude  to  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
the  Praise  of  Folly,  although  it  unfitted  him  to  become  himself 
the  champion  of  the  Reformation.  He  could  content  himself 
with  watching  the  progress  of  the  conflict  of  the  Reformation, 
leaving  for  us  this  excellent  admonition  that  there  are  some 
questions  that  cannot  be  settled  by  the  next  General  Council, 
but  must  wait  for  the  last  day,  and  that  will  be  time  enough. 

So  other  examples  might  be  cited  from  the  biographies  of 
those  who  are  held  in  esteem  bv  their  followers  as  their  fore- 
fathers  and  the  founders  of  their  several  churches.  Such  psy¬ 
chological  diversities  are  recognized  in  these  words  of  the 
Lambeth  Conference,  of  1908,  which  might  well  serve  as  a 
motto  for  the  cause  of  reunion,  “Not  compromise  but  compre¬ 
hension,  not  uniformity  but  unity.” 

In  an  article  giving  an  account  of  the  recent  Lambeth  Con¬ 
ference,  The  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Dr.  Talbot,  I  find  this 
recognition  of  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  reunion,  occasioned 
by  a  radically  divisive  psychological  difference.* 

“A  good  understanding  of  what  we  may  allow  for  differences 
of  intention  in  doing  the  same  thing  together,  or  in  the  use  of 

*  In  Contemporary  Review,  October,  1920. 


54 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


creeds,  is  quite  indispensable  in  inter-church  conferences.  What 
latitude  for  differences  of  intention  in  the  use  of  the  same  words 
of  a  confession  of  faith  or  in  doing  the  same  things  in  acts 
of  consecration  or  worship  must  be  recognized  and  their  free 
play  provided  for  in  the  company  of  Christian  believers?  Fail¬ 
ure  to  recognize  just  these  differences  of  intention  in  doing  the 
same  thing  or  repeating  the  same  words  which  result  from 
diversities  of  personal  psychologies  has  been  a  fruitful  cause 
of  splitting  up  the  communion  of  the  saints  into  sects.” 

In  the  preparation  of  the  proposed  canon  the  question  of 
intention  in  the  additional  ordination  and  ministry  of  the  sac¬ 
raments  was  one  of  the  first  things  carefully  considered.  The 
Chancellor  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  defined  our  ecclesias¬ 
tical  use  of  intention  as  follows:  “Upon  this  point  there  ought 
to  be  no  room  for  doubt.  The  sense  of  intention  in  which  such 
orders  are  conferred  or  accepted  is  the  sense  or  intention  in 
which  they  are  held  in  the  Universal  Church.  Neither  the 
bishop  conferring  such  orders  nor  the  minister  receiving  them 
should  be  understood  to  impugn  the  efficacy  of  the  minister’s 
previous  ministry.” 

“The  same  principle  applies  to  the  ministration  of  the  sacra¬ 
ments.  The  minister  acts  not  merely  as  the  representative  of 
the  particular  congregation  then  present,  but  in  the  larger  sense 
he  represents  the  Church  Universal,  and  his  intention  and  mean¬ 
ing  should  be  our  Lord’s  intention  and  meaning  as  delivered 
to  and  held  by  the  Catholic  Church.” 

The  same  truly  Catholic  principle  that  the  intention  of  the 
Church  in  ministering  the  sacrament  is  not  to  be  limited  by 
any  private  interpretation,  applies  to  ordination.  First,  it  puts 
ordination  in  its  proper  place,  as  not  constitutive  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  Eucharist,  but  in  its  secondary  value  as  the  means 
for  the  assurance  of  a  right  administration  of  the  sacrament.* 
Secondly,  it  does  not  require  that  the  person  who  is  to  be 

*  What  the  doctrine  in  this  respect  of  the  Roman  Church  is  was  explicitly 
defined  in  this  sentence  from  the  Bull  of  Leo  XIII  rejecting  Anglican  Orders. 

“When  one  has  rightly  and  seriously  made  use  of  the  due  matter  and  form 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTOR 


55 


ordained  to  the  priesthood  must  necessarily  be  of  the  same 
mind  or  intention  as  the  official  who  ordains  him.  That  is,  a 
difference  of  intention  would  not  render  the  ordination  void, 
provided  the  ordination  itself  be  given  in  matter  and  form  as 
the  Church  requires.  Within  the  Episcopal  Church  wide  dif¬ 
ferences  of  views  are  held  of  the  intention  of  Ordination,  as 
they  are  in  other  communions. 

The  Lambeth  declaration  is  perfectly  clear  and  conclusive 
on  this  point.  It  does  not  deny  the  “efficacy”  of  the  sacraments 
of  other  communions.  The  use  of  that  single  word  “efficient” 
is  enough  to  relieve  divisive  questions  concerning  the  validity 
of  the  orders  of  other  ministers. 

When  the  Anglican  Bishops  have  thus  let  down  the  bars  to 
fellowship  in  a  common  ministry,  it  would  be  worse  than  folly 
for  Congregational  ministers,  or  Episcopal  clerics,  to  put  them 
up  again  in  order  that  they  may  continue  to  bar  each  other 
out  from  inter-communion.  This,  however,  is  not  to  say  that  in 
order  to  secure  regularity  in  the  exercise  of  this  liberty,  suit¬ 
able  forms  and  precautions  might  not  properly  and  without 
controversy  be  arranged. 

One  Church,  accordingly,  might  properly  ask  a  minister  who 
had  been  previously  ordained  in  another  communion,  to  receive 
additional  orders  from  it,  if  desirous  to  serve  in  its  congrega¬ 
tion,  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  the  regularity  of  their  own 
customs,  or  the  full  assurance  of  all  of  their  communicants. 
Although  one  might  feel  that  to  be  unnecessary,  it  would  not 
be  an  act  of  accommodation  or  Christian  good  will  to  refuse 
such  added  authorization. 

requisite  for  the  offering  or  conferring  of  a  sacrament,  he  is  considered  by  the 
fact  itself  to  do  what  the  Church  does.  On  this  principle  rests  the  doctrine 
which  holds  that  to  be  a  true  sacrament  which  is  conferred  according  to  the 
Catholic  rite,  even  by  the  ministry  of  a  heretic  or  an  unbaptized  person.” 

This  unequivocal  papal  statement  both  of  the  principle  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Catholic  Church  cannot  be  evaded  by  assuming  that  it  must  refer  only 
to  baptism. 

It  states  a  general  principle  of  sacramental  efficacy,  inherent  in  and  deriva¬ 
tive  from,  the  sacrament  itself  when  rightly  administered  in  matter  and  form. 
There  is  no  allusion  to  the  particular  sacrament  of  baptism. 


56 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


A  further  question,  however,  has  been  raised  as  to  how  far 
difference  of  intention  should  be  allowed  between  a  Bishop 
who  ordains  and  the  person  whom  he  is  to  ordain.  To  a  large 
extent  this  must  be  left  as  a  personal  equation.  The  general 
principle  would  be,  as  already  stated,  that  the  intention  of 
the  whole  Church  should  be  the  common  intention,  not  differ¬ 
ences  of  personal  conception,  of  what  the  act  of  ordaining  may 
mean.  It  might  be  equally  intolerant  for  a  non-Episcopal  body 
to  insist  that  a  person  receiving  ordination  to  its  ministry  must 
agree  with  its  view  of  the  office  of  the  ministry,  as  it  would 
be  for  an  Episcopal  Bishop  to  insist  on  anything  more  than 
the  common  intention  of  the  whole  Church.  Narrowness  of 
view  and  action  in  this  respect  may  by  no  means  be  confined 
to  one  side. 

Without  dwelling  needlessly  on  these  really  subordinate 
ecclesiastical  matters  of  concern,  the  whole  hitherto  divisive 
problem  concerning  ordination  seems  to  me  to  be  reduced  to 
Christian  simplicity  when  put  in  this  way;  suppose  one  of  us 
were  invited  to  preach  in  an  Episcopal  pulpit,  as  one  of  us 
occasionally  has  been,  and  just  as  he  was  about  to  ascend  into 
the  pulpit  the  good  Bishop  should  graciously  meet  him  and, 
laying  his  hand  on  him,  should  say,  “By  whatever  authority 
or  grace  of  God  as  a  Bishop  may  have  been  given  me,  take 
thou  authority  from  me  as  a  priest  in  this  Church”;  and  then 
should  add  his  prayer  of  consecration  and  blessing  for  him; — 
would  he  not,  going  up  into  that  pulpit  with  a  sense  of  added 
grace  and  presence  of  the  Spirit,  feel  inspired  to  preach  as 
perhaps  never  so  well  before  with  that  prayer  and  consecration 
abiding  in  his  heart?  And  he  might  return  carrying  with  him 
to  his  own  people  an  added  faith  and  spiritual  benediction. 

So  may  our  inherited,  outgrown,  but  too  persistent,  habits 
and  prejudices  fall  away  from  us  when  we  reduce  them  to  the 
last  terms  of  simplicity  and  love. 

In  discussions  of  ordination  questions  we  often  start  from 
the  wrong  end  of  the  question.  We  begin  by  bringing  forward 
our  chief  objections.  Let  us  try  the  other  way  and  begin  by 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTOR 


57 


bringing  out  our  best  intentions.  The  Episcopalian  may  start 
from  the  assertion  that  historically  the  Bishop  has  authority 
to  ordain  the  clergy.  The  non-Episcopalian  will  stand  fast  on 
the  assertion  that  his  Church  has  its  authority  to  consecrate  its 
own  ministry.  The  one  might  compare  his  view  of  the  un¬ 
broken  succession  of  the  ministry  to  a  telegraph  wire,  supported 
by  an  unbroken  succession  of  poles,  running  far  back  to  the 
original  power  house  of  Apostolic  authority.  The  other,  while 
not  perhaps  intimating  that  the  wire  at  some  points  might  have 
been  grounded — some  supports  having  fallen — will  confidently 
affirm  that  he  gets  his  power  straight  from  above — a  wireless 
transmission.  It  may  not  occur  to  them  whether  both  may  not 
be  right,  and  whether  each  method,  the  Apostolic  succession 
and  the  Spiritual  transmission,  may  not  each  be  true  and  com¬ 
plementary  to  one  another.  Usually  after  such  controversial 
meetings  they  return  each  to  his  own  “impregnable  position.” 
They  end  where  they  began.  Let  us  begin  then  at  the  other  end 
of  the  difficulty,  and  see  how  we  may  come  out.  We  may  start 
by  inquiring,  each  of  himself,  what  is  our  intention  either  in 
bestowing  or  receiving  ordination?  Here  we  may  start  at  least 
at  the  beginning  of  the  first  Scriptural  mile  to  walk  together. 
Suppose  then  that  the  Bishop  signifies  what  he  deems  to  be 
the  intention  of  his  Church  in  conferring  orders.  Let  the  other, 
seeking  to  understand,  try  to  state  what  is  the  intention  of  his 
Church  in  its  way  of  setting  one  apart  for  the  Christian  min¬ 
istry.  Only  a  step  or  two  farther  they  may  have  thus  gone  on 
this  first  mile;  but  they  have  taken  it  together.  They  find  after 
a  while  that  they  are  not  so  far  apart  after  all  as  to  the  general 
intention  of  holy  orders.  The  way  begins  to  open  before  them, 
and  the  prospect  becomes  interesting,  but  the  end  not  in  sight. 
Then  they  come  to  a  turn  in  the  way  where  they  may  find  it 
difficult  to  keep  pace  with  each  other.  The  signs  by  the  road¬ 
side  are  not  quite  clear.  One  hesitates,  but  the  other  will  press 
on.  They  have  gone  the  first  mile  keeping  sight  of  one  another. 
And  then,  being  led  by  an  irresistible  feeling  in  their  hearts 
that,  having  gone  so  far  together,  they  cannot  separate,  they 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


58 

enter  the  second  mile.  And  as  they  walk  on,  even  like  the  two 
disciples  on  the  way  from  Emmaus  towards  the  Holy  City, 
their  hearts  burn  within  them,  as  though  an  unknown  Com¬ 
panion  were  leading  them  towards  the  place  where  the  other 
disciples  were  gathered  together,  and  they  could  tell  how  the 
presence  of  the  risen  Lord  had  been  made  known  to  them  in 
the  breaking  of  bread. 

This  is  no  fanciful  sketch.  Something  like  this  has  been  the 
experience  of  some  of  us  who  have  been  meeting  each  other 
in  these  conferences  for  several  years  past,  and  have  been 
coming  more  deeply  and  truly  to  know  each  other.  We  at  least 
may  not  lose  the  sense  of  some  higher  companionship  of  the 
Spirit,  nor  ever  again  doubt  to  what  end  the  way  must  lead. 

Our  difficulty  in  accepting  the  proffer  of  additional  Episco¬ 
pal  ordination,  although  made  in  honorable  terms,  springs 
rather  from  a  general  attitude  of  mind  than  from  discussions  of 
particular  proposals.  To  receive  further  ordination  may  seem 
humiliating  in  our  own  feeling  at  least.  Very  likely;  but  is 
that  only  on  one  side  ?  We  say,  we  do  not  require  anything  from 
others  when  we  extend  to  them  the  right  hand  of  our  fellow¬ 
ship  with  prayer  and  renewed  consecration.  Are  we  so  sure  of 
that?  Let  one  of  them  answer — a  missionary  Bishop,  even  the 
Bishop  of  Zanzibar,  whose  objection  to  inter-communion  of 
missionary  converts  a  few  years  ago  caused  the  Kikuyo  con¬ 
troversy  to  break  out.  He  also  went  to  Lambeth,  and  he  came 
away  with  the  vision  of  the  whole  Church.  With  two  other 
Bishops  he  has  written  a  book  called  “Lambeth  and  Reunion” 
and  this  is  what  he  would  bear  witness  of: 

It  may  be  said  that  this  is  asking  more  from  Nonconformists 
than  from  Anglicans.  We  would  venture  to  ask  whether  this  is  a  case 
where  nice  calculations  can  be  made  of  the  sacrifice  involved,  and 
a  balance  struck  as  between  this  group  and  that.  Assuming  that  it 
is  so,  that  more  is  asked  of  one  group  than  of  another,  we  know 
where  the  pre-eminence  lies  in  the  scale  of  Christian  values.  Even  in 
the  war  the  only  true  pre-eminence  was  one  of  sacrifice  and  service. 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTOR 


59 


It  is  so  here.  For  we  cannot  shut  out  the  thought  of  Him  who  de¬ 
clined  the  immeasurable  right  that  was  His,  and  refused  to  regard 
His  position  as  “a  prize  to  be  grasped  at,”  but  “for  us  men  and  for 
our  salvation  came  down  from  heaven.”  Nor  can  we  forget  that  He, 
in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  was  pleased  to  submit  to  a  consecration 
and  mission  at  His  baptism  which  by  no  sort  of  right  could  have 
been  demanded  of  Him.  If  He,  the  head  of  the  body,  did  not  disdain 
that  humiliation  shall  the  members  complain  if  a  similar  call  comes 
to  them?  Thus,  perchance,  in  this  twentieth  century,  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfil  all  rightousness. 

It  calls  upon  all  ministers  to  pass  a  self-denying  ordinance  whereby 
they  would  be  ready  to  accept  a  new  commission  from  the  larger 
family  and  for  the  larger  service.  We  do  not  deny  that  this  raises 
grave  difficulties  at  once.  For  the  natural  man  in  the  Anglican  will 
not  easilv  submit  himself  to  Roman  ordination,  any  more  than 
the  natural  man  in  the  Nonconformist  will  desire  to  submit  himself 
to  the  hands  of  the  bishop.  Such  a  step  seems  to  cast  an  inevitable 
reflection  on  past  status,  and  to  ask  more  than  a  minister  of  God 
can  reasonably  be  expected  to  give.  Yet  we  cannot  think  that  the 
difficulty  is  insuperable.  On  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  in  view 
of  the  immensity  of  the  Church’s  task  and  of  the  urgent  necessity 
for  reunion,  men  will  not  be  wanting  in  every  Church  who  for  the 
joy  that  is  set  before  them  will  be  willing  thus  to  go  all  lengths  in 
the  cause  of  future  fellowship.  We  note  at  once  that  there  is  no 
question  of  repudiating  our  ministries.  “No  one  of  us  could  possibly 
be  taken  to  repudiate  his  past  ministry.”  We  make  no  estimate  and 
pronounce  no  verdict  upon  each  other’s  orders.  We  are  content  with 
the  only  estimate  which  really  counts,  namely,  that  of  a  “past  experi¬ 
ence  rich  in  spiritual  blessings  for  himself  and  others.”  We  make  a 
mutual  surrender  for  Christ’s  sake  to  meet  doubts  or  difficulties  in 
any  other  group  which  is  part  of  Christ’s  body. 

It  is  their  desire,  real,  sincere,  and  passionate,  to  cause  the  sins  of 
their  predecessors  to  be  forgiven  by  the  non-episcopal  communions, 
and  to  win  for  the  Anglican  bishops  a  heartfelt  welcome  within  the 
new  groups. 

The  bishops  feel  that  these  groups,  while  not  themselves  guiltless, 
have  verv  great  cause  to  throw  much  of  the  blame  for  disunion  on 
former  Anglican  bishops,  as  on  Anglican  laymen  in  high  office  in  the 


6o 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


State.  They  remember  with  shame  the  revengeful  ejections  of  1662, 
and  the  cruel  legislation  of  that  period  which  made  the  legal  position 
of  Nonconformists  almost  intolerable.  They  are  conscious  to  the  full 
of  the  many  graces  and  blessings  showered  by  God  upon  the  non- 
episcopal  communions,  and  they  recognise  the  many  “inheritances 
of  grace”  laid  up  by  them  during  their  years  of  existence;  inherit¬ 
ances  which  Anglicans  can,  in  logic,  make  no  claim  to  share.  But 
the  bishops  desire  intensely  to  be  welcomed  to  a  share  in  these  good 
things.  They  desire  to  be  received  gladly  by  the  children  of  the 
non-episcopal  prophets  into  the  family-life  their  sufferings  helped  to 
establish.  Accused  as  they  may  be,  with  some  justice,  of  building 
the  tombs  of  these  prophets,  in  these  latter  days  they  would  in 
God’s  sight  claim  recognition  of  their  spiritual  kinship  with  the 
prophets.  It  is,  therefore,  with  a  quite  genuine  sense  of  guilt  in 
respect  of  the  Anglican  communion’s  share  in  disunion,  and  with  an 
entirely  sincere  plea  for  a  hearty  welcome  into  the  new  groups  within 
the  fellowship,  that  they  ask  for  official  recognition. 

This  at  least  may  be  said.  It  deals  with  the  whole  situation.  It 
provides  a  scheme  by  which  union  may  be  effected  with  the  Church 
of  Rome  no  less  than  with  the  youngest  communion  of  the  Reformed 
Churches.  It  provides  a  way  by  which  the  gifts  and  experiences  of 
the  various  Churches,  so  far  from  being  slurred  over  or  scrapped, 
are  to  be  conserved  for  the  whole  Fellowship,  and  thereby  immeas¬ 
urably  increased  both  in  intrinsic  value  and  scope  of  action.  It 
recognises  that  this  organic  Fellowship  must  have  a  common  min¬ 
istry  recognised  throughout  the  whole  body,  and  it  suggests  in  effect 
that  all  existing  ministries  must  make  their  contribution  to  the  new 
order;  the  non-episcopal  churches  bringing  their  gifts  of  inspiration 
and  prophecy,  and  the  episcopal  Churches  their  treasures  of  history 
and  order  and  devotion.  The  idea  of  “submission”  on  either  side  is 
completely  excluded.  Rather  we  call  our  brethren  to  a  new  and 
inspiring  co-operation  in  reclaiming  for  the  ministry,  both  theirs 
and  ours,  that  fulness  of  life  and  action  which  was  characteristic  of 
the  primitive  undivided  Church.  This  can  only  be  when  the  sepa¬ 
rated  streams  of  spiritual  life  have  met  once  more  in  what  will  indeed 
be  a  “river  of  God.” 

To  come  to  a  practical  example,  we  three  bishops  who  write  this 
book  would  earnestly  desire,  when  the  time  comes,  to  receive  what- 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTOR 


61 


ever  ministerial  commission  the  Wesleyans  or  the  Presbyterians  or 
the  Romans  might  desire  to  give  us.  It  is  not  that  we  doubt  for  one 
instant  our  own  ordination  in  the  Church  of  God,  but  that  we  desire 
by  an  outward  and  visible  act  to  confess  our  share  of  responsibility 
for  the  schism  which  has  made  such  a  procedure  necessary,  and  to 
receive  in  solemn  symbol  those  streams  of  spiritual  endowment  from 
which,  partly  by  our  own  fault,  we  have  been  alienated.  We  desire 
to  go  all  lengths  to  recover  a  ministry  which  is  not  denominational  but 
truly  Catholic;  a  ministry,  that  is,  linked  to  the  Apostles  in  the  past, 
recognised  by  the  whole  Christian  people  in  the  present,  bearing 
the  commission  of  the  whole  Church,  and  bringing  to  the  service 
of  the  world  the  very  fulness  of  ministerial  power.  There  is  no  room 
for  prelacy  here. 


VII 


Three  Practical  Proposals 

THE  Lambeth  Appeal  acknowledges  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments  of  other  communions.  This  involves  an 
admission  of  the  dependent  question  concerning  the 
validity  of  non-episcopal  ordination.  Hence  it  becomes  pos¬ 
sible  to  confer  concerning  these  three  practical  proposals. 

First.  The  intercommunion  of  believers.  Under  what  regu¬ 
lative  agreements  shall  this  be  secured,  so  that  the  communion 
shall  be  rightly  administered  in  matter  and  form,  and  to  per¬ 
sons  prepared  to  receive  it? 

Second.  The  fellowship  of  the  ministry.  What  form  of  com¬ 
mission  of  authority  by  any  one  church  may  be  desired  in 
order  that  the  ministry  of  another  church  may  be  duly  authen¬ 
ticated  to  minister  in  its  services  ? 

Third.  Questions  of  jurisdiction  or  administration.  The 
Anglican  Church  holds  that  the  Episcopate  may  be  generally 
recognized  for  these  purposes  both  on  account  of  its  historical 
continuity,  and  its  prevalence  among  by  far  the  greater  number 
of  believers  in  all  lands. 

The  last  question  would  require  readjustments  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  differences  in  administrative  jurisdiction  of 
various  communions.  For  Congregationalists  the  matters  in¬ 
volved  would  be  simpler,  and  in  some  ways  more  easily  worked 
out  than  for  others.  For  the  remark  that  Dr.  Huntington 
of  Grace  Church,  New  York,  once  made  to  me  has  much  truth 
in  it,  that  the  fundamental  difference  between  the  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Congregational  is  that  in  the  former  the  unit 
of  administration  is  the  diocese,  while  in  the  latter  it  is  the 
individual  congregation.  For  the  Congregationalist,  accord¬ 
ingly,  the  crux  of  such  proposals  would  be  to  secure  a  sufficient 


THREE  PRACTICAL  PROPOSALS 


63 


regard  for  self-government  of  the  local  church  with  necessary 
co-operation,  and  the  control  of  common  interests  by  the 
churches  all  together  represented  in  their  National  Council, 
or  also  locally  in  their  State  conferences.  How  may  the  his¬ 
toric  Episcopate  be  adapted  to  various  needs  ? 

In  an  address  made  by  Rev.  Dr.  C.  B.  Wilmer  to  four  clubs 
in  Atlanta,  Georgia,  he  corrected  the  common  misunderstand¬ 
ing  that  the  phrase  “Historic  Episcopate”  as  used  in  the  Chi- 
cago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral,  means  that  the  validity  of  the 
ministry  depends  on  a  tactual  line  of  succession  from  the 
Apostles.  He  rightly  says,  “That  is  exactly  what  it  was  in¬ 
tended  not  to  mean.”  He  savs  further  of  the  action  of  the 

j 

Anglican  Bishops  in  the  recent  Lambeth  Conference:  “In  1920 
they  made  a  still  further  advance,  to  some  of  us  very  surpris¬ 
ing  (I  confess  I  have  not  yet  got  over  it)  and  gratifying  and 
fairly  breathing  the  very  spirit  of  unity.  They  substituted  these 
words,  ‘A  ministry  acknowledged  in  every  part  of  the  Church 
as  possessing  not  only  the  inward  call  of  the  Spirit,  but  also 
the  Commission  of  Christ,  and  the  authority  of  the  whole  body.’ 
For  a  statement  of  questionable  fact,  they  substitute  a  prin¬ 
ciple.”  He  also  refers  to  Principal  Rainy,  of  the  Scottish  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church,  who  in  his  volume  on  the  Ancient  Catholic 
Church  says,  “It  was  felt  that  the  whole  Church  should  be  rep¬ 
resented  and  that  this  was  especially  the  case  in  regard  to  ordi¬ 
nation,  because  any  organization  of  the  ministry  that  does  not 
represent  the  whole  Church  necessarily  tends  toward  schism.” 

In  a  paper  presented  by  the  Congregational  Commission  at 
a  preparatory  conference  of  the  World  Conference,  these  three 
practical  proposals  were  stated  as  follows:  “(1)  As  concerns 
the  ministry,  a  clergy  so  authenticated  that  without  violation 
of  the  scruples  of  any,  their  standing  may  be  regarded  as 
regular  by  them  all.  (2)  As  regards  the  people,  complete  inter¬ 
communion  of  believers  upon  some  agreed  and  orderly  method 
of  intercommunion.  (3)  So  far  as  concern  the  ecclesiastical 
polities  of  the  different  churches,  sufficient  administrative  unity 
to  enable  them,  without  loss  of  desirable  home  rule,  to  act  as 


64 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


a  whole  for  the  purposes  of  the  whole.”  In  the  discussion  of 
such  proposals  it  should  be  kept  constantly  in  mind,  particu¬ 
larly  in  regard  to  additional  authorization  of  the  ministry  by 
the  conferring  the  orders  of  another,  that  the  Lambeth  pro¬ 
posals  do  not  contemplate  any  reordination  merely  into  the 
regular  ministry  of  the  Church  of  England.  That  is  not  so  much 
as  mentioned  in  their  Appeal.  What  is  contemplated  is  what¬ 
ever  Episcopal  additional  ordination,  or  confirmation  of  exist¬ 
ing  orders,  may  be  required,  without  prejudice,  for  a  common 
ministry  in  the  whole  Church  having  the  authority  of  all. 


VIII 


The  Providential  Training  of  Congrega¬ 
tionalism  To  Become  a  Maker 

of  Peace 

AS  I  look  back  to  the  beginnings  of  the  history  of  Con¬ 
gregationalism  and  then  behold  what  it  has  become 
‘-now,  I  find  myself  impressed  with  the  fact  that  it  has 
been  chosen  and  fashioned,  as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of 
the  Lord,  for  the  work  to  be  done  in  this  generation  in  making 
the  peace  of  the  churches  and  the  world.  From  this  point  of 
view  the  history  of  this  denomination  might  well  be  rewritten. 
The  notes  of  this  higher  voice  may  be  heard  ever  and  anon 
in  its  literature;  the  signs  of  its  high  calling  for  this  end  are 
to  be  read  at  many  a  turn  and  cross-road  along  its  way.  It 
would  require  a  volume  to  point  out  these  providential  signs 
along  the  way  of  our  Congregational  history. 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  narrative  of  what  has  been  occur¬ 
ring  during  the  past  few  years  when  one  event  has  crowded 
upon  another,  I  may  only  indicate  in  a  few  successive  sen¬ 
tences  the  signs  of  this  higher  leading. 

First.  The  history  of  Congregationalism  began  in  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  a  few  individuals  from  the  established  Church  of 
England.  They  held  divers  opinions  among  themselves,  but 
they  were  agreed  that  they  could  not  in  good  conscience  con¬ 
tinue  in  the  worship  of  the  Established  Church. 

Second.  The  chief  leaders  of  this  separation  were  well  edu¬ 
cated,  trained  in  the  universities. 

Third.  Going  forth  they  had  to  find  a  dwelling  place  in  the 
homes  of  the  humble.  They  observed  their  communion  in  no 
church  edifice,  but  in  some  room  among  the  common  people. 


66  A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 

Fourth.  They  gave  martyrs  as  the  witness  and  seal  of  their 
faith. 

Fifth.  Notwithstanding,  they  were  not  willingly  separatists; 
they  denied  that  their  separation  was  schism. 

Sixth.  They  continued  to  cherish  their  inborn  affection  for 
the  Church  of  England. 

Seventh.  From  the  first  they  not  only  met  with  oppositions 
from  without,  which  bound  them  together,  but  likewise  with 
dissensions  from  within  to  draw  them  apart.  That  was  the 
next  course  of  training  for  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  which 
Providence  set  for  them  to  learn;  and  it  has  taken  them  more 
than  one  generation  to  master  it.  How  they  argued  and  waged 
the  warfare  of  the  faithful, — is  not  this  written  in  the  books 
of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  our  Israel?  Nevertheless,  in 
spite  of  fears  from  without  and  heresies  from  within,  they  kept 
together;  and  all  the  while  the  same  Providence  was  welding 
them  and  fashioning  them  to  be  “a  good  instrument’’  for  the 
greater  work  of  faith  to  be  done  on  the  earth. 

To  what  purpose  then  has  been  this  providential  call  and 
training  of  Congregationalism  for  this  present  hour? 

A  few  outcasts,  holding  their  communions  in  humble  cot¬ 
tages,  pilgrims  across  the  sea,  one  of  the  least  of  denomina¬ 
tions,  of  divers  opinions  among  themselves,  owning  no  au¬ 
thority  over  them  but  their  own  conscience  and  the  Word  of 
the  Lord,  giving  the  first  fruits  of  their  fields  for  schools  and 
colleges,  as  the  Lord  prospered  them,  sending  their  missionaries 
to  the  ends  of  the  world, — for  what  now  are  they  girded  and 
called  as  one  body  to  do  ? 

The  venerable  Bishop,  who  misled  others  to  reject  our 
appeal  in  war  times  for  a  joint  consecration  of  ministers  of  the 
whole  Church  of  God,  may  not  have  heard  of  it;  and  in  the 
seclusion  of  his  own  diocese  he  may  have  come  to  look  upon 
us  as  a  scattered  flock  of  independent  congregations,  not  to 
be  trusted  by  the  custodian  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  safe¬ 
guarded  by  a  Constitution  and  some  sixty-three  and  more 
canons,  besides  Bishops  held  in  order  by  eight  daily  Orders, 


TRAINING  OF  CONGREGATIONALISM 


67 


and  thirty-two  General  Orders,  and  twelve  standing  Orders, — 
to  say  nothing  of  the  Constitutions  and  Rules  of  each  par¬ 
ticular  diocese; — but  this  is  what  was  done  in  the  year  1917 
by  the  Congregationalists, — it  may  be  found  in  the  records  of 
the  Regular  Meetings  of  the  National  Council  of  the  Congre¬ 
gational  Churches. 

“The  Congregational  Churches  of  the  United  States,  by 
delegates  in  National  Council  assembled,  reserving  all  the 
rights  and  cherished  memories  belonging  to  this  organization 
under  its  former  constitution  and  declaring  the  steadfast  ad¬ 
herence  of  the  churches  composing  the  Council  to  the  faith 
which  our  fathers  confessed,  which  from  age  to  age  has  found 
its  expression  in  the  historic  creed  of  the  Church  universal 
and  of  this  communion,  and  affirming  our  loyalty  to  the  basic 
principles  of  our  representative  democracy,  hereby  set  forth 
the  things  most  surely  believed  among  us  concerning  faith, 
polity  and  fellowship.”  Having  made  this  confession  in  the 
faith  of  the  whole  Church,  they  proceeded  to  set  forth  in 
simple  language  understandable  by  the  people  the  beliefs  by 
all  Christians  deemed  most  essential.  In  defining  their  polity, 
they  made  this  declaration  under  the  heading,  “The  Wider 
Fellowship.”  “While  affirming  the  liberty  of  our  churches  and 
the  validity  of  our  ministry,  we  hold  to  the  unity  and  catho¬ 
licity  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  will  unite  with  all  its 
branches  in  hearty  cooperation,  and  will  earnestly  seek,  so 
far  as  in  us  lies,  that  the  prayer  of  our  Lord  for  His  disciples 
may  be  answered,  that  they  all  may  be  one.” 

They  then  proceeded  to  reorganize  their  whole  working 
polity,  co-ordinating  the  various  benevolent  and  educational 
societies,  including  a  systematic  plan  of  contributions  for  such 
agencies,  the  adoption  of  a  sound  insurance  policy  for  the  relief 
of  aged  or  disabled  ministers,  appointed  an  Executive  Commit¬ 
tee  with  certain  powers  to  act,  consolidated  their  two  de¬ 
nominational  papers;  and  besides  all  this,  provided  that  the 
Moderator  of  the  Council  shall  continue  in  office  from  one 
Council  to  the  next  until  his  successor  shall  have  been  ap- 


68 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


pointed.  All  this  was  accomplished  by  the  unanimous  vote  of 
some  five  hundred  delegates  from  their  churches.  It  was  done 
thoroughly  and  effectually  after  two  years’  work  of  its  com¬ 
mission. 


IX 


Keeping  by  Giving 

ONE  obstacle  to  inter-church  communion  is  the  obliga¬ 
tion  which  each  denomination  has  felt  to  keep  watch 
and  guard  over  “the  deposit  of  faith”  committed  to  it. 
At  every  cross-road  watchful  sentinels  are  posted  keen  to 
detect  any  sound  of  approaching  heresies.  A  little  sensational 
alarm,  of  itself  of  passing  significance,  may  arouse  the  denomi¬ 
national  defenders  of  the  faith  from  their  slumbers,  and  set  a 
whole  church  in  commotion.  But  is  heresy  hunting,  or  hiding 
our  own  trust  in  the  earth  lest  some  adventurous  passer-by  may 
steal  it  from  us,  our  Lord’s  way  of  keeping  the  faith? 

How  did  He  keep  the  divinity  given  Him  of  God  from 
heaven?  Was  it  not  by  giving  it  even  to  a  touch  on  His  gar¬ 
ment?  What  meaning  for  our  churches  in  their  relations  to 
each  other  may  now  be  found  in  that  saying  of  Jesus  to  His 
disciples,  “In  whatsoever  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 
unto  you”?  And  again  in  those  words  to  His  disciples,  “Freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give”? 

Thinking  of  this,  my  acquaintance  with  Bishop  Weller  of 
Fond  du  Lac  had  been  so  spiritually  sincere  and  appreciative 
that  I  did  not  hesitate  to  write  to  him,  just  before  the  meeting 
of  the  Episcopal  Convention,  as  I  might  not  have  presumed 
to  do  to  another.  In  our  letters  we  usually  went  below  the 
mooted  questions,  seeking  to  get  at  the  heart  of  things — with 
him  I  could  have  differences,  indeed,  but  no  controversy.  The 
following  extracts  from  this  letter  I  put  in  print  because  they 
seem  to  me  to  go  beneath  the  controversial  lines  which  too 
long  have  separated  us  into  opposing  camps,  and  they  may  at 
least  be  suggestive  of  changes  of  front  for  leaders  on  both  sides. 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


70 

My  dear  Bishop  Weller: 

I  think  that  I  can  understand  what  was  lying  back  in  your  mind 
when  you  hesitated  to  use  the  word  “efficient”  with  regard  to  the 
non-Episcopal  ministration  of  the  sacrament.  But  I  realize,  as  you 
also  would,  what  lies  still  deeper  in  our  common  Christian  thought 
and  devotion.  The  highest,  most  Christian  thing, — is  it  not  the  sac¬ 
rificial  willingness  to  give  of  such  as  we  have,  as  we  may  to  others? 
Jesus  did  not  withhold  himself  from  any  of  his  disciples  because 
He  could  not  give  them  all  at  once  His  divinity.  May  I  then  ven¬ 
ture  to  suggest  that  just  this  Christlike  method  of  self-impartation 
would  be  for  all  of  us  the  truest  Church  polity  of  keeping  our  own 
“precious  things,”  conserving  by  imparting  as  we  may  even  to  the 
least  measure  of  another’s  faith?  ...  In  this  crisis  of  Christianity 
for  the  world,  if  we  fail  of  cooperating  in  real  Church  fellowship, 
we  shall  all  of  us  share  in  the  sinfulness  of  schism. 

Pardon  me  then,  if  I  venture  to  suggest  that  now  a  complete 
change  of  front  on  the  side  of  the  High  Church  party  might  com¬ 
mand  the  situation,  and  at  the  same  time  secure  the  conservation 
of  what  you  hold  in  trust,  if,  putting  aside  all  controversy  be¬ 
tween  us,  you  should  boldly  and  avowedly  offer  to  enter  with 
us  into  the  fellowship  of  a  common  ministry  and  communion.  It 
often  in  our  conferences  and  conversations  has  seemed  to  me  that 
the  Church  extremes  draw  nearest  each  other;  and  that,  if  once 
brought  into  touch  with  each  other,  like  positive  and  negative  elec¬ 
tricity,  they  might  work  together  as  one  great  Christian  force. 

Often  in  such  conferences  it  has  seemed  to  me,  although 
our  ecclesiastical  points  of  view  were  separated,  we  ourselves 
were  rather  like  men  standing  on  opposite  shores,  between 
which  seas  were  tossed  by  tumultuous  winds,  but  we  stood 
looking  in  the  same  direction  where  far  out  to  sea  the  dawn 
of  a  new  day  was  breaking  on  the  horizon  line. 


X 


A  Personal  Word  to  My  Brethren  in  the 
Congregational  Ministry 

FOR  thirteen  years  it  has  been  my  privilege  to  serve 
as  a  member  of  the  Commission  of  the  National  Council 
of  Congregational  Churches  on  Federation,  Comity  and 
Unity  and  especially  as  one  of  a  sub-committee  to  receive  any 
overture  from  the  Episcopal  Church. 

Since  then  at  each  successive  meeting  of  the  National  Coun¬ 
cil  we  have  made  our  reports.  In  publishing,  as  I  now  do,  this 
narrative  of  what  throughout  these  years  we  have  sought  to 
do  and  to  venture,  I  desire  to  express  my  grateful  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  the  confidence  and  support  which  have  been  given  me, 
whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  have  at  any  time  existed 
among  us  in  our  common  desire  to  recover  the  fellowship  of 
all  the  Churches  of  Christ.  We  do  not  forget  that  our  fore¬ 
fathers  were  not  originally  in  their  own  intention  separatists. 
In  one  of  the  early  Puritan  pamphlets  we  read  these  words: 
“Peradventure  you  will  say,  we  have  broke  the  unity  of  the 
National  Church,  wdiich  we  ought  to  have  preserved.  I  answer 
we  have  but  broke  it  by  accident.”  If  it  has  continued  to 
remain  broken  by  the  accidents  of  history,  so  now  should  it  be 
restored  by  the  necessities  of  making  Christianity  the  rule  of  the 
nations.  In  our  own  conferences  and  councils  we  do  not  forget 
that  differences  of  opinions  need  not  prevent  us  from  commun¬ 
ing  together  as  certain  ministers  in  London  in  the  year  1656 
in  an  agreement  declared:  “That  where  different  principles  lead 
to  the  same  practice,  we  may  join  together  in  that  practice, 
reserving  to  each  of  us  our  own  principles.” 

During  the  past  few  years  Prof.  Williston  Walker  has 


72 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


been  a  co-worker  with  me  in  all  our  correspondence  and  con¬ 
ferences  with  the  Episcopalians.  His  clear  wisdom  and  alert 
courage,  combined  with  his  serene  faith  have  been  to  me  a 
never  failing  support  and  reassurance.  In  going  through  the 
correspondence  from  which  materials  for  this  narrative  have 
been  drawn,  I  have  felt  as  though  he  were  still  by  my  side — we 
still  consulting  together — and  that  I  am  carrying  on,  as  best  I 
may,  his  work  also;  so  that  I  might  say  to  his  many  pupils,  he 
being  dead,  yet  speaketh;  and  dedicate  to  his  memory  what¬ 
ever  is  worthiest  in  these  pages. 

I  may  not  refrain  from  expressing  my  profound  conviction 
that  a  providential  obligation  will  be  laid  upon  our  next 
National  Council  of  making  a  great  declaration,  and  by  some 
practical  act  of  committal  taking  our  denominational  place  in 
the  whole  militant  and  triumphing  Church  of  God.  To  my 
younger  brethren  in  our  ministry  I  would  with  confidence  and  a 
prophetic  hope  commit  the  completion  of  this  work  of  which 
this  narrative  has  recorded  the  beginnings. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  National  Council  in  1917  it  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  me  to  use  these  words  in  support  of  the  new  decla¬ 
ration  which  we  made  at  that  time  of  our  progressive  faith 
and  polity:  “It  means  that  the  Congregational  Churches  have 
a  faith  which  they  are  not  ashamed  to  confess  and  that  they 
are  not  to  lapse  into  a  state  of  childlike  creedlessness.  .  .  . 
These  creeds  are  not  to  be  bound  as  fetters  on  the  feet  of 
progress;  they  are  to  be  held  aloft  as  banners,  as  we,  like  our 
fathers  before  us,  go  marching  on  as  the  Lord  shall  lead  us 
into  fuller  knowledge  of  the  love  that  passes  knowledge.  May 
the  time  never  come  when  the  Congregational  Churches  shall 
cease  to  affirm  their  right,  and  share  and  fellowship  with  all  the 
saints  in  the  Apostolic  succession  of  the  faith  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  throughout  all  the  world.” 

Now  that  the  crust  of  the  old  civilization  is  breaking  up,  and 
another  springtime  is  coming  both  for  state  and  church,  the 
prospect  opens  before  the  ministry  of  a  vaster  field  of  service. 
Need  any  of  us  now  fear  to  take  up  that  old  rallying  cry  of 


A  PERSONAL  WORD 


73 


one  of  our  forefathers,  “ Reformation  without  tarrying  for 
any”?  Well  may  we  heed  this  wise  saying  of  another  of  our 
own  prophets  of  old,  “There  is  indeed  danger  of  falling  if  we 
go  forwards,  and  there  is  also  danger  if  we  fall  backwards;  as 
we  read  in  the  case  of  Eli  of  old,  who  fell  backwards  and  brake 
his  neck  and  he  died.” 

Next  October  our  National  Council  meets;  what  shall  our 
answer  to  Lambeth  be? 


Appendix 

I 

A  Preliminary  Statement  of  a  Joint  Conference  Held 

at  Lambeth  Palace 

ON  November  30,  1921,  the  Conference  met  at  Lambeth 
Palace  under  the  chairmanship  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  after  prolonged  discussion  appointed 
a  committee  of  thirteen  persons  (six  Church  of  England  and 
six  Free  Churchmen)  to  consider,  under  the  chairmanship  of 
the  Archbishop  of  York,  some  of  the  issues  involving  large 
questions  of  principle  which  had  been  raised  during  the  Con¬ 
ference.  This  committee  held  prolonged  meetings  in  Lambeth 
Palace  in  January,  March  and  April,  1922,  giving  considera¬ 
tion  chiefly  to  the  three  following  subjects:  (1)  The  nature 
of  the  Church;  (2)  The  nature  of  the  Ministry;  (3)  The  place 
of  creeds  in  a  United  Church.  The  committee  ultimately  de¬ 
cided  to  present  their  report  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  proposi¬ 
tions  to  which  they  had  unanimously  agreed.  The  Conference 
met  at  Lambeth  Palace  on  May  24,  1922,  to  receive  the  report. 
The  report  was  considered,  and  after  full  discussion  the  Con¬ 
ference  unanimously  gave  its  general  approval  to  the  several 
propositions  in  the  form  printed  below: 

“It  is  obvious  that  many  matters  of  great  importance  are 
not  dealt  with  in  this  interim  report.  These  must  be  the  subject 
of  future  discussion.  But  the  members  of  the  Conference  hope 
that  the  agreement  which  they  have  so  far  reached  may  prove 
to  be  a  basis  upon  which,  by  God’s  help,  further  agreement 
leading  to  practical  action  may  be  built.  Meanwhile,  we  would 
earnestly  press  upon  all  who  have  this  great  matter  at  heart 
that  they  should  remember  steadily,  both  in  public  and  private 


APPENDIX 


75 


prayer,  the  possibilities  of  which,  as  we  believe,  God  is  opening 
to  our  view,  in  firm  assurance  that  He  will,  in  His  own  good 
time,  show  us  the  manner  of  their  accomplishment.” 

Randall  Cantuar, 
Cosmo  Eber, 

J.  D.  Jones, 

Moderator  of  the  Federal  Council. 

May  29th,  1922. 

I.  On  the  Nature  of  the  Church 

1.  The  foundation  of  the  Church  rests  not  upon  the  will  or  con¬ 
sent  or  beliefs  of  men,  whether  as  individuals  or  as  societies,  but 
upon  the  creative  Will  of  God. 

2.  The  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  its  constitutive  principle 
is  Christ  Himself,  living  in  His  members  through  His  Spirit. 

3.  As  there  is  but  one  Christ,  and  one  Life  in  Him,  so  there  is  and 
can  be  but  one  Church. 

4.  This  one  Church  consists  of  all  those  who  have  been,  or  are 
being,  redeemed  by  and  in  Christ,  whether  in  this  world  or  in  the 
world  beyond  our  sight,  but  it  has  its  expression  in  this  world  in  a 
visible  form.  Yet  the  Church,  as  invisible  and  as  visible,  is,  by  virtue 
of  its  own  life  in  Christ,  one. 

5.  This  visible  Church  wras  instituted  by  Christ  as  a  fellowship 
of  men  united  with  Him,  and  in  Him  with  one  another,  to  be  His 
witness  and  His  instrument  in  the  spread  of  His  Kingdom  on  earth. 

6.  As  a  visible  Church  it  must  possess  certain  visible  and  recog¬ 
nisable  marks  whereby  it  can  be  seen  and  known  by  men.  These 
have  been  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  at  least  the  following: 
(a)  The  profession  of  faith  in  God  as  revealed  and  incarnate  in 
Christ;  (b)  the  observance  of  the  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ 
Himself;  (c)  an  ideal  of  the  Christian  life  protected  by  a  common 
discipline;  (d)  a  ministry,  representative  of  the  Church,  for  the 
preaching  of  the  Word,  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and 
the  maintenance  of  the  unity  and  continuity  of  the  Church’s  witness 
and  work.  (See  II,  1.) 

7.  Baptism  is  by  the  ordinance  of  Christ  and  of  His  Apostles  the 
outward  and  visible  sign  of  admission  into  membership  of  the 
Church. 


76 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


8.  The  Church  visible  on  earth  ought  to  express  and  manifest  to 
the  world  by  its  own  visible  unity  the  one  Life  in  Christ  of  the  one 
Body. 

9.  The  true  relation  of  the  Church  and  local  Churches  is  that  which 
is  described  in  the  New  Testament — namely,  that  the  Churches  are 
the  local  representatives  of  the  One  Church.  The  actual  situation 
brought  about  in  the  course  of  history  in  which  there  are  different 
and  even  rival  denominational  Churches  independent  of  each  other 
and  existing  together  in  the  same  locality,  whatever  justification  aris¬ 
ing  out  of  historical  circumstances  may  be  claimed  for  these  tempo¬ 
rary  separations,  cannot  be  regarded  as  in  accordance  with  the 
Purpose  of  Christ,  and  every  endeavour  ought  to  be  made  to  restore 
the  true  position  as  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 

10.  The  marks  which  ought  to  characterise  the  Church  visible  on 
earth  are  possessed  by  these  existing  separate  Churches  and  societies 
of  Christian  people  in  very  varying  degrees  of  completeness  or  defect. 
Hence,  even  though  they  be  parts  of  the  visible  Church,  they  cannot 
be  considered  as  all  alike  giving  equally  adequate  expression  to  the 
Lord’s  Mind  and  Purpose.  Some,  indeed,  may  be  so  defective  that 
they  cannot  rightly  be  judged  to  be  parts  of  that  Church.  But  such 
judgments,  though  made  in  trust  that  they  are  in  accordance  with 
the  Divine  Mind,  must  be  regarded  as  limited  to  the  sphere  of  the 
visible  Church  as  an  ordered  society  here  on  earth.  It  would  be 
presumption  to  claim  that  they  have  a  like  validity  in  the  sphere  of 
the  whole  Church  as  the  One  Body  of  the  redeemed  in  Christ,  for 
within  that  sphere  judgment  can  only  be  given  by  the  All-knowing 
Mind  and  Sovereign  Mercy  of  God. 

II.  The  Ministry 

1.  A  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacrament  is  a  Divine  ordinance 
for  the  Church,  and  has  been  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  an 
integral  part  in  its  organised  life. 

2.  It  is  a  ministry  within  the  Church  exercising  representatively, 
in  the  Name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Who  is  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  the  powers  and  functions  which  are  inherent  in  the 
Church. 

3.  It  is  a  ministry  of  the  Church,  and  not  merely  of  any  part 
thereof. 


APPENDIX 


77 


4.  No  man  can  take  this  ministry  upon  himself.  It  must  be  con¬ 
ferred  by  the  Church,  acting  through  those  who  have  authority  given 
to  them  in  the  Church  to  confer  it.  There  must  be  not  only  an  inward 
call  of  the  Spirit,  but  also  an  outward  and  visible  call  and  commis¬ 
sion  by  the  Church. 

5.  It  is  in  accordance  with  Apostolic  practice  and  the  ancient 
custom  of  the  Church  that  this  commission  should  be  given  through 
Ordination,  with  prayer  and  the  laying-on  of  hands  by  those  who 
have  authority  given  to  them  to  ordain. 

6.  We  believe  that  in  Ordination,  together  with  this  commission 
to  minister,  Divine  Grace  is  given  through  the  Holy  Spirit  in  response 
to  prayer  and  faith  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  charge  so  committed. 

7.  Within  the  many  Christian  Communions  into  which  in  the 
course  of  history  Christendom  has  been  divided,  various  forms  of 
ministry  have  grown  up  according  to  the  circumstances  of  these 
several  Communions  and  their  beliefs  as  to  the  Mind  of  Christ  and 
the  guidance  of  the  New  Testament.  These  various  ministries  of 
Word  and  Sacrament  have  been,  in  God’s  providence,  manifestly 
and  abundantly  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  His  work  of  “enlightening 
the  world,  converting  sinners,  and  perfecting  saints.”  But  the 
differences  which  have  arisen  with  regard  to  the  authority  and  func¬ 
tions  of  these  various  forms  of  ministry  have  been  and  are  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  manifold  doubts,  questions,  and  misunderstandings.  For  the 
allaying  of  doubts  and  scruples  in  the  future,  and  for  the  more  per¬ 
fect  realisation  of  the  truth  that  the  ministry  is  a  ministry  of  the 
Church,  and  not  merely  of  any  part  thereof,  means  should  be  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  United  Church  which  we  desire,  whereby  its  ministry 
may  be  acknowledged  by  every  part  thereof  as  possessing  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  whole  body. 

8.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Episcopate  was  from  early  times 
and  for  many  centuries  accepted,  and  by  the  greater  part  of  Chris¬ 
tendom  is  still  accepted,  as  the  means  whereby  this  authority  of  the 
whole  body  is  given,  we  agree  that  it  ought  to  be  accepted  as  such 
for  the  United  Church  of  the  future. 

9.  Similarly,  in  view  of  the  place  which  the  Council  of  Presbyters 
and  the  Congregation  of  the  faithful  had  in  the  constitution  of  the 
early  Church,  and  the  preservation  of  these  elements  of  presbyteral 
and  congregational  order  in  large  sections  of  Christendom,  we  agree 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


78 

that  they  should  be  maintained  with  a  representative  and  constitu¬ 
tional  Episcopate  as  permanent  elements  in  the  order  and  life  of  the 
United  Church. 

10.  The  acceptance  of  Episcopal  Ordination  for  the  future  would 
not  imply  the  acceptance  of  any  particular  theory  as  to  its  origin 
or  character,  or  the  disowning  of  past  ministries  of  Word  and  Sacra¬ 
ment  otherwise  received,  which  have,  together  with  those  received  by 
Episcopal  Ordination,  been  used  and  blessed  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

III.  The  Place  of  the  Creed  in  a  United  Church 

1.  In  a  united  Church  there  must  be  unity  of  Faith,  which  implies 
both  the  subjective  element  of  personal  adhesion  and  an  objective 
standard  of  truth. 

2.  The  supreme  standard  of  truth  is  the  revelation  of  God  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  summed 
up  in  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  As  the  Church  in  its  corporate  capacity  confesses  Christ 
before  men,  there  should  be  in  the  United  Church  a  formal  state¬ 
ment  of  its  corporate  faith  in  Christ  as  an  expression  of  what  is 
intellectually  implied  by  its  confession  of  Him. 

4.  The  Creed  commonly  called  Nicene  should  be  accepted  by  the 
United  Church  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  this  corporate  faith. 
The  manner  and  occasions  in  which  the  Creed  is  to  be  used  should 
be  determined  by  the  United  Church. 

5.  With  regard  to  a  confession  of  faith  at  Baptism,  the  United 
Church  would  be  justified  in  using  the  Creed  which  has  been  for 
centuries  the  Baptismal  Creed  of  the  Western  Church,  commonly 
called  the  Apostles’  Creed.  Its  use  at  Baptism  would  imply  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  corporate  faith  of  the  Church  therein  expressed  as  the 
guide  and  inspiration  of  the  Christian  life. 

6.  The  use  of  the  Creeds  liturgically  in  the  public  worship  of  the 
Church  should  be  regarded  as  an  expression  of  corporate  faith  and 
allegiance;  and  the  United  Church  should  be  prepared  to  recognise 
diversities  of  use  in  this  as  in  other  liturgical  customs. 

7.  When  assent  to  the  Creeds  is  required  by  the  United  Church, 
such  assent  should  not  be  understood  to  imply  the  acceptance  of 
them  as  a  complete  expression  of  the  Christian  Faith,  or  as  excluding 
reasonable  liberty  of  interpretation.  It  should  be  understood  to  imply 


APPENDIX 


79 


the  acceptance  of  them  as  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  contained 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  affirming  essential  elements  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Faith,  and  as  preserving  that  Faith  in  the  form  in  which  it  has 
been  handed  down  through  many  centuries  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

8.  While  we  thus  recognise  the  rightful  place  of  the  Creeds  in  the 
United  Church,  we  also  recognise  most  fully  and  thankfully  the 
continued  Presence  and  Teaching  of  the  Living  Spirit  in  His  Body, 
and  emphasise  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  keep  its  mind  free  and 
ready  to  receive  from  Him  in  each  day  and  generation  ever-renewed 
guidance  in  the  apprehension  and  expression  of  the  truth. 


II 

The  Concordat,  Canon  II 

(Adopted  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Church, September,  1922) 
Of  the  Ordination  of  Deacons  and  Priests  in  Special  Cases 

Of  Ministers  Who  Have  Not  Received  Episcopal  Ordination 

Section  I.  In  case  any  Minister  who  has  not  received  episcopal 
ordination  shall  desire  to  receive  such  orders  from  a  Bishop  of  this 
Church  to  the  Diaconate  and  to  the  Priesthood  without  giving  up  or 
denying  his  fellowship  or  his  ministry  in  the  Communion  to  which 
he  belongs,  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  or  Missionary  District  in 
which  he  lives,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Standing  Com¬ 
mittee  or  the  Council  of  Advice,  may  confirm  and  ordain  him; 
provided,  also,  that  the  congregation,  if  any,  in  which  such  Minister 
officiates,  shall  declare,  through  its  proper  representatives,  its  desire 
for  such  ordination  on  behalf  of  its  Minister,  and  its  purpose  to 
receive  in  future  the  ministrations  and  the  Sacraments  of  one  who 
shall  be  ordained  to  the  Priesthood  by  a  Bishop. 

Pre-ordination  Requirements 

Section  II.  The  Minister  desiring  to  be  so  ordained  shall  satisfy 
the  Bishop  that  he  has  resided  in  the  United  States  at  least  one 
year;  that  he  has  been  duly  baptized  with  water  in  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  he  holds 


8o 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


the  historic  faith  of  the  Church  as  contained  in  the  Apostles’  Creed 
and  the  Nicene  Creed;  that  there  is  no  sufficient  objection  on 
grounds  physical,  mental,  moral  or  spiritual;  that  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authority  to  which  he  is  subject  in  the  Communion  to  which  he 
belongs  consents  to  such  ordination;  that  he  will  not  knowingly 
admit  to  the  Holy  Communion  any  person  who  has  not  been  bap¬ 
tized  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  and  further,  the  Bishop  shall  charge  him  that 
the  Church  hopefully  anticipates  the  use  of  the  Apostolic  practice  of 
Confirmation  among  his  people. 

Declarations,  Undertakings  and  Agreements  Required 

Section  III.  At  the  time  of  such  ordination  the  person  so  to  be 
ordained  shall  subscribe  and  make  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop  a 
declaration  that  he  believes  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of  God  and  to  contain  all  things  neces¬ 
sary  to  salvation;  that  in  the  ministration  of  Baptism  he  will  unfail¬ 
ingly  baptize  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  shall  also  undertake  that  in  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Communion  he  will  invariably  use  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,  and  will  include  in  the  service  (a)  a  Prayer  of  Con¬ 
secration,  embodying  the  words  and  acts  of  our  Lord  in  the  Institu¬ 
tion  of  the  Sacrament,  an  Offering,  an  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  a  Thanksgiving,  (b)  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  and  (c)  the  Apostles’ 
Creed  or  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  symbol  of  the  faith  and  unity  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  He  shall  also  agree  that  when  thereto 
invited  by  the  Bishop  of  this  Church  having  jurisdiction  in  the  place 
where  he  lives,  he  will  (unless  unavoidably  prevented)  meet  with 
such  Bishop  for  Holy  Communion  and  for  counsel  and  co-operation; 
and  that  he  will  hold  himself  answerable  to  the  Bishop  of  this  Church 
having  jurisdiction  in  the  place  where  he  lives,  or,  if  there  be  no  such 
Bishop,  to  the  Presiding  Bishop  of  this  Church,  in  case  he  be  called 
in  question  with  respect  to  error  of  faith  or  of  conduct. 

Procedure  in  Case  of  Trial 

Section  IV.  In  case  a  person  so  ordained  be  charged  with  error  of 
faith  or  of  conduct  he  shall  have  reasonable  notice  of  the  charge  and 
reasonable  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  the  procedure  shall  be  simi¬ 
lar  to  the  procedure  in  the  case  of  a  Clergyman  of  this  Church 


APPENDIX 


81 


charged  with  the  like  offense.  The  sentence  shall  always  be  pro¬ 
nounced  by  the  Bishop  and  shall  be  such  as  a  Clergyman  of  this 
Church  would  be  liable  to.  It  shall  be  certified  to  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authority  to  which  the  defendant  is  responsible  in  any  other  Com¬ 
munion.  If  he  shall  have  been  tried  before  a  tribunal  of  the  Com¬ 
munion  in  which  he  has  exercised  his  ministry,  the  judgment  of  such 
tribunal  proceeding  in  the  due  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  shall  be 
taken  as  conclusive  evidence  of  facts  thereby  adjudged. 

Conditions  of  Officiating  and  Restrictions 

Section  V.  A  Minister  so  ordained  may  officiate  according  to  the 
prescribed  order  of  this  Church,  in  a  Diocese  or  Missionary  District 
of  this  Church  when  licensed  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  thereof, 
but  he  shall  not  become  the  Rector  or  a  Minister  of  any  Parish  or 
Congregation  of  this  Church  until  he  shall  have  subscribed  and  made 
to  the  Ordinary  a  declaration  in  writing,  whereby  he  shall  solemnly 
engage  to  conform  to  the  Doctrine,  Discipline  and  Worship  of  this 
Church.  Upon  his  making  such  declaration  and  being  duly  elected 
Rector  or  Minister  of  a  Parish  or  Congregation  of  this  Church,  and 
complying  with  the  Canons  of  this  Church  and  of  the  Diocese  or 
Missionary  District  in  that  behalf,  he  shall  become  for  all  purposes 
a  Minister  of  this  Church. 

Section  VI.  In  this  Canon  the  action  to  be  taken  by  a  Bishop  is 
limited  to  that  of  the  Bishop  of  a  Diocese  or  Missionary  District, 
having  jurisdiction  therein. 


Ill 

The  Historical  Succession  of  Conferences 

on  Church  Unity 

ONE  of  the  significant  facts  of  Church  history  since  the 
Reformation,  to  which,  however,  the  Church  histories 
have  paid  little  attention,  is  the  succession  of  confer¬ 
ences  for  reunion.  The  only  history  of  all  these  conferences,  so 
far  as  I  know,  is  a  German  publication  of  two  volumes  entitled 
Attempts  towards  Church  Union  ( Kirchlichen  Union  Ver- 
suchen)  from  the  Reformation  to  the  Present  Time  (1836), 


82 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


C.  W.  Hering.  It  contains  full  accounts  drawn  from  documen¬ 
tary  sources  of  all  such  important  conferences,  as  notably  that 
at  Thorn  of  both  Catholic  and  Protestant  representatives,  in 
which  detailed  reports  of  the  speeches  made  at  the  sessions 
of  the  Conference  are  reported.  These  volumes  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Yale  University  Library.  They  contain  not  only  narra¬ 
tives  of  the  proceedings  of  such  conferences,  but  also  accounts 
of  the  individual  endeavors  and  writings  which  contributed  to 
them.  A  glance  through  these  volumes  is  enough  to  show  how 
continuously  throughout  these  centuries  of  controversies  and 
separations,  efforts  for  happier  relations  among  the  churches 
have  not  been  wanting.  The  Church  not  only  has  inherited  the 
controversies  of  the  past;  but  this  history  of  makers  of  peace 
from  generation  to  generation  is  also  our  inheritance;  and  its 
fulfilment  our  obligation  to  the  past, — God  having  provided 
some  better  thing  for  us  that  they  without  us  should  not  be 
made  perfect.  (An  account  of  some  of  these  “Historical  Mate¬ 
rials  for  Present  Uses”  has  been  published  in  the  volume  on 
Approaches  towards  Unity ,  Yale  University  Press,  by  Smyth 
and  Walker.) 


IV 

Three  Recent  Books 

BISHOP  GORE’S  second  edition  of  The  Church  and  the 
Ministry;  Canon  Arthur  C.  Headlam’s  The  Doctrine 
oj  the  Church  and  Christian  Reunion;  L.  J.  Walker’s 
The  Problem  oj  Reunion. 

The  second  edition  of  now  Bishop  Headlam’s  volume  contains 
a  reply  to  Bishop  Gore’s  criticism  of  it  as  well  as  Mr.  Turner’s 
review.  It  is  based  on  the  results  of  critical  studies  of  the  ori¬ 
gins  of  divisions  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  In  no  single 
volume  can  so  much  scholarly  material  for  intelligent  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  problems  of  reunion  be  found.  The  volume  by 
L.  J.  Walker,  S.J.,  is  a  remarkably  irenical  discussion  of  the 
problems  of  reunion  from  the  Roman  Catholic  point  of  view. 


APPENDIX 


83 


His  extended  account  of  the  existing  relation  among  Protestant 
churches  and  their  problems  of  reunion  is  not  only  intelligent 
and  fair,  but  it  contains  much  well  worth  our  consideration. 
His  view  of  the  possibilities  of  reunion  among  the  Protestant 
Churches  is  instructive,  and  his  assertion  that  the  High,  or 
as  he  calls  them  the  “advanced  Catholics”  of  the  Church  of 
England,  hold  a  position  which  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
Rome,  is,  to  say  the  least,  interesting.  For  any  who  would 
really  understand  the  best  thought  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to-day  this  book  is  to  be  commended. 

CONCERNING  THE  CREED 

The  following  account  has  been  sent  to  me  by  Bishop  Lines, 
of  New  Jersey. 

Rev.  Dr.  A.  C.  Headlam,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at 
Oxford  and  Bishop-Designate  of  Gloucester,  preaching  in  Lon¬ 
don  just  now  upon  the  replies  of  Rev.  Dr.  Selbie  and  Rev.  Dr. 
Scott  Lidget  to  the  Lambeth  Conference  Report,  expresses  him¬ 
self  in  ways  which  interested  me  greatly,  as  generous  and 
thoughtful  utterances  on  the  subject  of  “Barriers  to  Unity.” 

Dr.  Selbie  had  said  that  in  the  Congregational  Church  there 
has  always  been  very  great  reluctance  to  impose  Creeds  upon 
anyone,  that  “the  Nicene  Creed  is  as  good  as  any  for  the 
present”  discussion  of  the  place  of  a  Creed,  “but  it  will  not  do 
to  make  them  impositions  upon  any.” 

Dr.  Lidgett  had  said  that  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  Chris¬ 
tian  disunion  has  been  the  over  elaboration  of  dogmatic  state¬ 
ments,  but  that  we  must  unite  together  on  one  faith,  with  bal¬ 
ance  of  judgment  and  with  reasonable  ground  for  thinking  that 
the  great  body  of  our  people  accept  that  faith. 

Dr.  Headlam  suggests  this  solution: 

We  should  recognise  that  the  basis  of  union  must  be  the  acceptance 
of  the  faith  of  Christ.  We  are  not  Christians  because  we  believe  the 
Nicene  Creed,  but  because  we  believe  the  faith  which  is  expressed  in 
the  Nicene  Creed.  Therefore  I  would  suggest  that  we  take,  as  the 
terms  of  our  faith,  assent  to  the  creeds,  something  of  this  sort:  “We 


84 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


accept  the  faith  of  Christ  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
as  it  has  been  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Creed  of  the  Church.”  If 
you  were  to  call  upon  everyone  to  make  some  such  declaration  as 
that,  you  would  be  securing  the  unity  of  our  faith,  leaving  full  free¬ 
dom  for  interpretation,  and  would  take  care  that  the  emphasis  was 
not  on  this  or  that  particular  document,  but  that  the  emphasis 
was  on  the  faith  of  Christ,  which  is  something  for  our  heart  and 
conscience  as  well  as  our  intellect. 

There  is  hardly  a  theologian  in  the  English  Church  to-day 
more  highly  regarded  for  great  learning  combined  with  prac¬ 
tical  judgment. 

This  suggestion  of  Bishop  Headlam  is  in  accordance  with 
the  declaration  of  faith  adopted  by  the  national  Congregational 
Council  in  1917.  It  also  agrees  with  the  following  statement 
of  the  basis  of  the  World  Conference,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
North  American  Preparatory  Conference  in  1916  as  follows: 

“The  basis  of  the  proposed  World  Conference  is  the  faith 
of  the  whole  Church,  as  created  by  Christ,  resting  on  the  In¬ 
carnation  and  continued  from  age  to  age  by  His  Life  until  He 
comes.”  Such  declaration  of  the  faith  of  the  whole  Church  not 
only  recognizes  the  historic  continuity  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church  from  the  Apostolic  times,  but  also  it  recognizes  the 
fulfilment  from  age  to  age  of  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  to  lead 
the  disciples  into  all  truth.  This  leaves  to  enlightened  scholar¬ 
ship  the  historic  interpretation  of  creeds. 


V 

Concerning  the  Inter-communion  of  Believers 

A  MOST  valuable  part  of  Bishop  Headlam’s  contribu¬ 
tion  to  Reunion  is  the  portion  of  his  book  in  which  he 
treats  of  the  Eucharist, — “The  Holy  Communion  was 
intended  to  be  the  great  Christian  Sacrament  of  unity.” 

His  presentation  of  the  Sacrament  of  unity,  taken  as  a  whole, 
is  at  once  so  clear,  so  simply  thorough  and  convincing,  that 
I  hesitate  to  quote  from  it  single  striking  sentences, — it  should 


APPENDIX 


85 


be  read  and  thought  over  as  a  whole.  These  few  single  sen¬ 
tences  may  serve  to  indicate  its  scope  and  significance.  He 
defines  his  object  in  these  three  main  propositions.  First,  that 
the  emphasis  on  the  particular  form  of  belief  in  the  Eucharist 
is  quite  contrary  to  all  the  feelings  and  beliefs  of  the  undivided 
Christian  Church.  Secondly,  that  the  chief  cause  of  division 
between  different  bodies  of  Christians  has  been  the  attempt  to 
make  dogmatic  systems  on  questions  of  Eucharistic  belief. 
And,  thirdly,  that  the  only  hope  of  Christian  union  is  not  on 
any  formula  to  which  all  may  agree,  but  in  recognizing  that 
all  can  join  in  accepting  a  common  Liturgical  worship,  for  so 
far  as  worship  is  concerned,  there  is — if  men  would  only  look 
at  what  they  believe,  and  not  at  what  they  do  not  believe — 
among  all  devout  minds,  a  real  and  genuine  common  ground 
of  belief.  “There  is  a  heritage,  but  it  is  not  a  defined  doctrine, 
it  is  one  of  Eucharistic  worship.  All  the  Liturgies  are  per¬ 
fectly  consistent  with  almost  any  attempt  to  define  Eucharistic 
doctrine.  So  long  as  the  Church  avoided  definition  there  was 
little  discussion  on  the  Eucharist,  but  Eucharistic  worship  was 
the  center  of  all  Church  life.  And  if  it  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  our  Liturgy  that  the  Church  of  England  unites,  it  is,  I  be¬ 
lieve,  in  its  Liturgies  alone  that  the  Christian  Church  will  ever 
be  able  to  unite.  All  alike,  the  Liturgies  in  everything  that  is 
essential  are  older  than  our  controversies.” 

But  such  fragmentary  quotations  only  express  the  intention 
and  hope  of  the  whole.  In  confirmation  of  it  I  may  add  the 
following  extract  from  the  letter  of  a  group  of  Priests  at  Rome 
to  Pope  Pius  X,  entitled,  “What  We  Want”  (translated  by 
A.  L.  Lilley,  John  Murray,  1907) : 

“So  again,  to  explain  the  Eucharistic  Mystery,  we  cannot, 
for  similar  reasons,  adopt  the  theory  of  transubstantiation,  un¬ 
less  no  one  is  to  understand.  But  we  will  say  that  the  faithful, 
after  the  words  of  consecration,  while  with  the  senses  of  their 
bodily  life  they  will  see  only  bread  and  wine,  will  yet  with  the 
soul,  by  means  of  a  superphenomenal  experience — of  faith,  in 
short, — be  in  contact  with  the  real  and  living  Christ,  Who, 


86 


A  STORY  OF  CHURCH  UNITY 


before  he  died,  gathered  his  disciples  to  a  fraternal  feast  to 
communicate  to  them  for  the  last  time  the  ‘ Bread  of  Eternal 
Life’ — will  be  in  contact  with  the  Christ  suspended  upon  the 
Cross,  the  Victim  of  justice  and  of  peace”  (p.  42). 


VI 


Some  Words  from  the  Past  for  Present  Uses 

IT  is  now  generally  known  that  the  bloody  hate  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  for  the  amelioration  of  which  human  wisdom  can 
discover  no  means,  which  daily  grows  worse  and  worse, 
flows  from  no  other  source  than  the  disunity  of  religion.” 
Wladislav  IV,  King  of  Poland,  1645. 

“It  will  then  doubtless  be  far  from  us,  so  to  attest  the  dis¬ 
cipline  of  Christ,  as  to  detest  the  disciples  of  Christ:  so  to 
contend  for  the  seamless  coat  of  Christ,  as  to  crucify  the  living 
members  of  Christ:  so  to  divide  ourselves  about  Church 
communion,  as  through  breaches  to  open  a  wide  gap  for  a 
deluge  of  Antichristian  &  profane  malignity  to  swallow  up  both 
Church  and  civil  state. 

“What  shall  we  say  more?  is  difference  about  church  order 
become  the  inlet  of  all  the  disorders  in  the  kingdom?  hath  the 
Lord  indeed  left  us  to  such  hardness  of  heart,  that  Church 
government  shall  become  a  snare  to  Zion,  (as  sometimes  Moses 
was  to  Egypt,  Exod.  10.7.)  that  we  cannot  leave  contesting 
and  contending  about  it,  till  the  kingdom  be  destroyed?  did 
not  the  Lord  Jesus,  when  he  dedicated  his  sufferings  for  his 
church  and  his  also  unto  his  father,  make  it  his  earnest  and 
only  prayer  for  us  in  this  world,  that  we  might  be  one  in  him  ? 
John  17,  20,  21,  22,  23.  And  is  it  possible,  that  he,  (whom  the 
Father  heard  always,  John  n,  42.)  should  not  have  had  this 
last  most  solemn  prayer  heard,  and  granted?  or,  shall  it  be 
granted  for  all  the  saints  elsewhere,  and  not  for  the  saints  in 
England;  so  that  amongst  them  disunion  shall  grow  even  about 


APPENDIX 


87 


church  union,  and  communion?  If  it  is  possible,  for  a  little 
faith  (so  much  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed)  to  remove  a  moun¬ 
tain:  is  it  not  possible,  for  so  much  strength  of  faith,  as  is 
to  be  found  in  all  the  godly  in  the  kingdom,  to  remove  those 
Images  of  jealousy,  and  to  cast  those  stumbling  blocks  out  of 
the  way,  which  may  hinder  the  free  passage  of  brotherly  love 
amongst  brethren.”  From  the  Preface  to  the  Cambridge  Plat¬ 
form,  1648. 

“We  have  endeavored  throughout,  to  hold  such  Truths  in 
this  our  Confession,  as  are  more  properly  termed  matters  of 
Faith,  and  what  is  of  Church  order,  we  dispose  in  certain 
propositions  by  itself.  .  .  .  There  being  nothing  that  tends 
more  to  heighten  dissentings  among  brethren,  than  to  deter¬ 
mine  and  adopt  the  matter  of  their  difference,  under  so  high  a 
title,  as  to  be  an  article  of  our  Faith.”  Preface  to  the  Savoy 
Declaration,  1658. 

“It  is  not  the  variety  of  opinions,  but  our  own  perverse  wills, 
who  think  it  meet  that  all  should  be  conceited  as  we  are,  which 
hath  so  inconvenienced  the  church;  were  we  not  ready  to 
anathematize  each  other,  which  we  concur  not  in  opinion,  we 
might  in  hearts  be  united  though  in  tongues  we  were  divided, 
and  that  with  singular  profit  to  all  sides.  It  is  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  not  identity  of  conceit,  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  requires  at  the  hands  of  Christians.  Since  it  is 
impossible  where  Scripture  is  ambiguous  that  all  conceits 
should  run  alike,  it  remains  that  we  should  seek  out  a  way  not 
so  much  to  establish  an  unity  of  opinion  in  the  minds  of  all, 
which  I  take  to  be  a  thing  likewise  impossible,  as  to  provide 
that  multiplicity  of  conceits  trouble  not  the  church’s  peace.” 
From  the  Golden  Remains  of  the  Ever  Memorial  Mr.  John 
Hales  of  Eton  College. 

The  primitive  use  of  the  word  Catholic,  Ignatius  Ep.  to  the 
Smyrnseans,  ch.  XIII. 

WHEREVER  JESUS  CHRIST  IS,  THERE  IS  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


Date  Due 


